Order Complaint No. 99 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO. 99 OF 2024
17th September 2025
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Dr. E. Sreelatha
(VNR Durga Residency, TRT Residency, Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500044)
…Complainant
Versus
M/s VNR Constructions.
(Represented through its Managing Partner,
Sri Vijaya Narasimha Raju
(R/o h.no. 2-2-647/a/57, ground floor,
Sr Lakshmi Gayathri Nilayam, Sai baba Nagar Colony, Hyderabad- 500 044)
…Respondent

The present matters filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of the Complainants in person, and the Respondent through its
Counsel, Sri VVS Satyanarayana & Sri M. Venkateswarlu and upon hearing submissions made
by both parties, and the matter reserved over for consideration till this date, this Authority
passes present Complaints
ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RE(R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondent.
A. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainant, are as follows:
3.

The Complainant submitted that the building construction of 'VNR DURGA

RESIDENCY' has the following issues:
a. Parking Allotment: Only G+4 floors were eligible for this permit number building and
though the builder has taken a special TDR permission and constructed G+5, the
parking space for all the ten flats is not there as per the agreement and the unplanned
construction of the watchman room is a huge hindrance due to which only nine parking
1 of 13

---

---

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

Direct the Respondent to give proper parking allotment

ii.

Direct the Respondent to dismantle the unauthorised watchman room

iii.

Direct the Respondent to provide authorised water connection

iv.

Direct the Respondent to complete painting work

v.

Direct the Respondent to provide good quality lift, transformer, gates to be cross
checked, increase the parapet wall, generator, CC Cameras to be installed and
increase greenery around the building, etc.

C. Counter on behalf of Respondent:
5.

The Respondent submitted that he entered into a Development Agreement on

31.10.2018 with the owners, i.e., N.Narasimha Rao, N.Nagesh Babu, Smt. N. Lakshmi, N.
Appala Narasamma, Smt. Kanaka Lakshmi, D. Nutan Sai Kumar, which was registered at SRO,
Chikkadapally, vide Document No: 5087 of 2018. By investing his own money, he completed
the construction activities as per the sanction accorded by the GHMC authorities, but the
owners have not paid due amounts of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) payable to the
said Respondent.
6.

The Respondent submitted that the construction of the Project VNR Durga Residency

was completed in the year 2021 itself. Since then, the Owners, ie, N.Narasimha Rao, N.Nagesh
Babu, Smt. N.Lakshmi, N.Appala Narasamma, Smt.Kanaka Lakshmi, D.Nutan Sai Kumar, and
their persons are in possession of the said property. The allegations that the Respondent did not
provide lift is false, since the Respondent had erected the lift and the occupants are using the
same, but due to not using the lift properly, its requires repairs, and it is the duty of the

3 of 13

---

The Respondent submitted that the watch man room is constructed only for the purpose

of watch man who is maintaining the Flats and also its maintenance, which is well within the
knowledge of the Complainants and other occupants of the said Apartment. Said Watchman
room was constructed only on the instructions of the above-mentioned Owners of the said
building, for providing accommodation to watch man to look after the maintenance and also
security of the said building.
8.

Further, it was submitted that it is not the duty of the said Respondent to provide CC

Cameras and Generator, as alleged by the Complainant. The above said Owners did not pay
the dues payable for the works successfully done by him. In fact, the above-mentioned owners
advised the said Respondent to erect generator at their expenses, but they failed to pay the
amounts.
9.

The Respondent submitted that the above complaint is liable for dismissal for non-

joinder of the necessary parties, since the above said Owners of the said building are to be made
parties to the Complaint.
10.

It was submitted that since December 2021 itself i.e., since completion of construction,

the Respondent is not responsible for the maintenance, providing the amenities as alleged by
the Complainant. The Respondent submitted that he provided all the amenities as per the
instructions and directions of the flat/land owners.
11.

The Respondent further submitted that the Respondent did not alienate the flat to the

Complainant. The Respondent sold away his undivided share of property in the said building
to the purchasers, and no complaint has been made by the said customers/occupants. Since the
Respondent never sold the Flat to the Complainant, hence the question of making allegations
in the said complaint are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the complaint
with costs.
Reply to show cause notice for non-registration filed:
12.

The Respondent have filed a reply before this authority to a show cause notice issued

to the Respondents as to why the said project was not registered with this Authority in
accordance with the proviso of Section 3 which categorically provides that projects that are ongoing as on the date of commencement of this Act, shall make an application for registration
4 of 13

---

Accordingly, the Respondent filed a reply to the same and submitted that after entering

into the Development Agreement cum GPA with the landowners vide Document No.5087 of
2018 dated 31.10.2018, the Respondent completed construction after obtaining due
permissions from the concerned authorities. It was submitted that the Project VNR Durga
Residency was constructed and developed on land measuring 413 sq. yards, which is equivalent
to 345.321 Sq. Meters, and this land does not fall under the purview of RERA, which stipulates
any development of the project above 500 Sq. Meters.
14.

It was submitted that after completion of the project, the units thereof were alienated to

the landowners and prospective buyers, and there was no publicity or any advertisements in
any vernacular Journals or newspapers or any sort of publicity about the construction for any
prospective buyers.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
15.

Subsequently, the Complainant filed a rejoinder to the Counter filed by the Respondent

and submitted that the current owners of VNR Durga Residency include not only the original
landowners but also those who purchased flats from the builder or previous owners. The
building now belongs to all ten flat owners collectively. Therefore, the pending works cannot
be delayed due to the builder’s financial dealings with select landowners, as all owners should
not be made to suffer for the builder’s lapses. Complainant answered as under:
a. Lift: It was submitted that the builder failed to provide essential amenities, including a
functional lift, flooring, painting, generator, and other promised works, causing severe
hardship to residents for over two and a half years. Despite repeated oral and written
requests, the builder neglected his obligations, forcing owners to occupy incomplete
flats due to financial constraints. The builder’s claim of lift installation in 2021 is false,
as evidenced by the warranty card confirming installation on 15.09.2023. The lift is
defective, frequently malfunctions, and poses safety risks, making the builder’s denial
of responsibility unacceptable. We request the authority to verify the installation records
and hold the builder accountable for delays, deficiencies, and the resulting
inconvenience to all owners.

5 of 13

---

6 of 13

---

7 of 13

---

Accordingly, the Complainant prayed to take action against the Respondent and also

submitted that the Respondent threatened 402 Flat Owner Smt. Konda Lakshmi to withdraw
the complaint filed before this Authority.
E. Points for consideration:
17.

After perusal of the documents filed by the parties and the contentions raised therein,

the following issues sprout for consideration by this Authority:
I.

Whether the Respondent have violated the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2106?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? If yes, to what extent?

F. Observation by the Authority:
Point I
18.

The Respondent has submitted that the project VNR Durga Residency was constructed

and developed on land admeasuring 413 square yards (equivalent to 345.321 square meters),
which, according to them, does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Authority since Section 3
8 of 13

---

20.

A plain reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that while advertising

and marketing may constitute one mode of attracting prospective purchasers, the prohibition
under the RE(R&D) Act is much wider. It specifically bars booking, selling, or even offering
for sale of apartments, plots, or buildings without prior registration of the project. Thus, the
absence of publicity alone does not absolve the promoter or landowner from compliance with
Section 3.
21.

The Respondent’s contention that the project falls outside the purview of this Authority

on account of the land extent being less than 500 square meters cannot be accepted. The records
placed on file, particularly the Development-cum-General Power of Attorney (DGPA), reveal
that the subject project comprises 10 flats.
22.

In terms of Section 3(2) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, registration of a project is

mandatory not only where the land exceeds 500 square meters but also where the number of
units in the project exceeds 8 apartments. Therefore, since the project admittedly comprises 10
apartments, it squarely falls within the jurisdiction of this Authority and is mandatorily
registrable.
23.

Furthermore, the Proviso to Section 3(1) provides that projects that had not obtained an

occupancy or completion certificate as on the date of commencement of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016 are compulsorily required to be registered. In the present case, since the project involves
more than 8 units and no completion certificate has been placed on record, the Respondent was
under a statutory obligation to register the project under Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Failure to do so attracts penal consequences under Sections 59 and 60 of the RE(R&D) Act,
9 of 13

---

The DGPA also establishes that under Clause 3, the Respondent-builder was obligated

to obtain all necessary licenses, permissions, and sanctions from the competent authorities. The
Respondent’s defence that the sale transaction was executed by the landowner and not by the
developer, and that the Complainant had contracted only with the landowner, is not legally
tenable.
23.

However, as per Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016:
“Promoter” means a person who constructs or causes to be
constructed an independent building or a building consisting
of apartments, or converts an existing building or part
thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or some
of the apartments to other persons and includes his
assignees.

24.

Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 defines “Promoter” includes a person who

constructs or causes to be constructed an apartment for sale, for the purpose of the selling, and
in the present case the landowner entered into sale transactions of apartment constructed on
their land. Thus, both the developer and the landowner fall within the statutory definition of a
“Promoter” in the given circumstances. The Sale Deed placed before this Authority shows that
the Complainant purchased the apartment directly from one of the landowners. Accordingly,
such landowner also assumes the status of a “Promoter” under Section 2(zk) and is equally
liable for contravention of Section 3.
25.

However, this Authority also notes that the project involves multiple landowners. The

specific landowner who executed the sale deed in favour of the Complainant has not been
impleaded as a party to the present proceedings.
26.

In light of the principles of natural justice, this Authority is of the view that all

landowners associated with the subject project, in addition to the developer, ought to be
afforded an opportunity of hearing before any coercive action is taken.
27.

Accordingly, the Secretary, Telangana RERA, is directed to issue Show Cause Notices

to all landowners as well as the developer(s) connected with VNR Durga Residency, calling
upon them to explain why action should not be initiated against them for violation of Section
3 read with Section 59 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
29.

Consequently, this Authority holds that merely proceeding against the Respondent-

developer would not suffice. The landowners, having entered into sale transactions without
10 of 13

---

This Authority therefore cautions that any person, including landowners, who

advertises, markets, books, sells, or offers for sale any apartment, plot, or building in any
project within the planning area, without registration under the Act, shall be held jointly and
severally liable under Section 3 read with Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
31. Therefore, Point No. I is answered in the affirmative.
Point II
32.

The Respondent has primarily contended that the Complainant has no cause of action

against him, since the subject flat was not purchased directly from the Respondent–Developer
but from one of the landowners, and therefore, no liability can be fastened upon him..
33.

This contention cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in Wadhwa

Group Housing Private Ltd. v. Mr. Vijay Choksi & Ors. [Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 21842
of 2023], has categorically held that absence of a direct contractual relationship between an
allottee and a developer does not absolve the developer of liability under the RE(R&D) Act,
2016.
34.

The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:
“24… The Appellant’s contention about absence of privity of contract
between it and the Complainant is totally misplaced. The definition of the term
‘promoter’ under Section 2(zk) of the RERA would indicate that even
persons/entities with whom a flat purchaser does not enter into a contract are
also covered by the definition of the term ‘promoter’. Therefore, it is not
necessary that there has to be an agreement between every promoter and the
flat purchaser. As observed above, it is a matter of indoor management
between the promoters and the flat purchaser, who is not supposed to know
the intricacies of the arrangements made between several promoters amongst
themselves. When a claim is raised in respect of a real estate project by a flat
purchaser, all promoters become jointly liable qua that flat purchaser,
irrespective of whether there is privity of contract with each of the promoters
or not. This is the scheme of RERA, and mere absence of privity of contract
with a particular promoter does not relieve such promoter in respect of the
liabilities under RERA.”

35.

In the present case, the reliefs sought by the Complainant pertain to construction

deficiencies, statutory amenities, and deviations from the approved plan all of which squarely
fall within the statutory responsibilities of a “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D)
11 of 13

---

The Respondent has further contended that the building was completed in December

2021 and, therefore, he ceases to bear any liability for alleged construction or structural defects.
This contention is misconceived. Section 14(3) of the RE(R&D) Act mandates that for a period
of five years from the date of handing over possession, the promoter shall rectify, free of cost,
any structural or workmanship defect brought to his notice within thirty days, failing which the
allottee is entitled to appropriate compensation. Accordingly, the Respondent’s liability under
the statutory defect liability clause continues to subsist.
37.

With regard to the allegation of unauthorized construction, namely a watchman room,

this Authority notes that the Respondent has not denied the same but has sought to justify it on
the ground that it was carried out at the instance of the landowners. It is observed that under
G.O.Ms. No. 168, provision of a servant room and toilet at the stilt floor is permissible as an
ancillary facility. Nevertheless, if the Complainant remains aggrieved on this issue, liberty is
reserved to approach the competent planning authority for redressal in accordance with law.
38.

The Complainant has also alleged that the lift is facing functional issues on account of

quality defects. However, no substantive material has been produced to substantiate this claim.
It is pertinent to observe that lifts constitute common facilities, and grievances regarding
common areas ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the Association of Allottees. Since the
Association has not been impleaded as a party and the allegation remains unsubstantiated, this
Authority is not inclined to adjudicate upon this issue
39.

As regards the grievance of non-provision of CCTV cameras and a generator, the

executed Agreement of Sale/Sale Deed between the Complainant and the landowner does not
contain any covenant obligating the provision of such amenities. The Complainant’s reliance
upon the terms of the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (DGPA)
between the landowners and the Respondent is misconceived, as the Complainant is not a party
to the said document, nor has any consideration been collected from him towards such
amenities. Consequently, no such obligation can be fastened upon the Respondent.
12 of 13

---

On the issue of painting, Rule 38 of the Telangana State RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 (Model

Agreement) expressly excludes painting works from the ambit of defect liability. The
legislative intent is clear that painting falls within the category of normal wear and tear,
excluded from the five-year defect liability period. This Authority, therefore, holds that the
Respondent cannot be held liable for deficiencies in painting under Section 14(3) of the
RE(R&D) Act.
41.

With respect to the allegation of non-provision of a proper water connection, the

Respondent has produced receipts of feasibility fees paid to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water
Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) in 2020. If the connection has not yet been secured,
it is the joint responsibility of the Respondent-promoter and the Association of Allottees to
pursue the matter with HMWSSB to ensure the necessary arrangements.
42.

Lastly, regarding the complaint about the parapet wall, this Authority clarifies that

under prevailing building norms, the minimum height of a parapet wall is 1 meter, and the
Respondent is obligated to comply with the same.
G. Directions of the Authority:
43.

In view of the detailed observations made hereinabove and upon careful consideration

of the pleadings, documents placed on record, the submissions made by both parties, and
applicable provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, the Authority directs the following:
i.

It is held that the project VNR Durga Residency, comprising 10 flats, falls squarely
within the ambit of Section 3(2) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, as the number of
apartments exceeds 8, Hence, the Secretary, Telangana RERA, is directed to issue Show
Cause Notices to all landowners associated with the subject project, in addition to the
Respondent-developer, to explain why action should not be initiated against them under
Section 59 of the RE(R&D) Act.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon'ble Chairperson,
TG RERA

13 of 13

---