Order Complaint No. CC:No. 1832& 2 other

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]

Corum:

11th day of July, 2024
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri LaxmiNarayanaJannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. SrinivasaRao, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO.1832 OF 2023

Between
Smt. Anuradha Kommineni

…. Complainant

AND
M/s Sai Surya Developers

…. Respondent

Complaint No CC024100000056 OF 2023
Between
Sri Chandramohan J

…. Complainant

AND
M/s Sai Surya Developers

…. Respondent

Complaint No CC024100000057 OF 2023
Between
Sri K.Venkata Chandra Sekhar

…. Complainant

AND
M/s Sai Surya Developers

…. Respondent

The complaints have come for final hearing on 18th April, 2024 before
this authority, in the presence of Complainants party in persons and Advocate
Priya Darshini for representing Respondent in all the complaints and after
hearing both the parties, the Authority passes the following:
COMMON ORDER
2.

These complaints have been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
1 of 6

“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
directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondent.
3.

The case of the complainants in all the complaints is on similar

grounds. Similarly the stand taken by the Respondent in their counters is
also same.
A. Facts of the complaint:
5.

The complainants have purchased plots in the project "Lake View Park,"

and the respondent, Satish Chandra Gupta, Managing Director of M/s Sai
Surya Developers, failed to register the plots in the name of the complainants.
Consequently, the complainants cancelled the allotment and sought for a
refund. The following are the amounts paid by each complainant:
a) Complainant 1: Paid an amount of Rs. 22,66,620/b) Complainant 2: Paid an amount of Rs. 23,22,020/c) Complainant 3: Paid an amount of Rs. 21,19,947/6. For Complianant1, Respondent till date has only Rs. 9 lakhs has been
returned by the Respondent and is yet to pay the remaining amount of Rs.
13,66,620/7.
Further, with the complainant 2, the entire amount is yet to be paid.
8.
With respect to Respondent has only refunded 10% of the amount paid
and the remaining balance is yet to be paid.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
9. To direct the Respondent to repay the entire amount.
C. Hearing Conducted:
10. A hearing was scheduled on January 18, 2024. No representation was
made on behalf of the Respondent, while the complainants appeared in
person and reiterated their contentions. The complainants submitted that the
Respondent failed to register the plots in their names, leading them to seek
cancellation of the plots. Despite the Respondent's repeated false promises to
repay the amount, no repayment has been made to date. The complainants
requested the Authority to direct the Respondent to repay the entire amount.
Due to the absence of representation by the Respondent, the complainants
2 of 6

and the Authority were directed to issue a fresh notice to the Respondent. The
matter was then posted for February 7, 2024. On this date, the complainants
were present, but no representation was made on behalf of the Respondent.
The notices issued by the Authority were returned, and the complainants also
failed to serve the notices. Consequently, the Authority directed the issuance
of a final notice to the Respondent at an alternative address, including all
relevant documents.
11. On February 20, 2024, the Respondent's counsel filed a Vakalatnama,
collected copies of the complaints, and requested time to file a reply. The
Authority explicitly directed the Respondent's counsel to file a reply within
one week and to present oral submissions at the next hearing.
12. On March 7, 2024, no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The
complainants informed the Authority that the land title belonged to KRR
Developers, and a new project construction had already commenced. They
stated that M/s Sai Surya Developers (the Respondent herein) had no legal
title over the subject property.
13. The Authority sought to ascertain the role of Sai Surya Developers in the
project and the legal status of the Respondent's rights, noting that the project
promoter was M/s KKR & Scpr Ventures. The complainants were unaware of
the Respondent's legal status. They submitted that payments were made to
the Respondent, and they had no knowledge of M/s KKR & Scpr Ventures'
role. Due to the absence of representation from the Respondent's counsel, the
Authority adjourned the matter for a final hearing.
14. The matter was subsequently posted for April 18, 2024. Neither party
appeared. Despite ample opportunities and explicit directions from the
Authority, the Respondent and its counsel failed to file a reply or appear.
D. Observations of the Authority:
Whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief sought?
15. As the Respondent's counsel failed to file a reply or appear despite explicit
directions, the Respondent is set ex parte vide this final order.

3 of 6

16. Upon reviewing the complainants' contentions and submitted documents,
it is evident that the Respondent allotted plots numbered 207, 206, and 153
and collected payments for the same. The sale agreement and project
brochure indicate that M/s Sai Surya Developers claimed authority to enter
into agreements and receive sale consideration for the plots. They agreed to
return the advance sale consideration in the event of any disputes or
inconveniences.
17. Based on the payment receipts and sale agreements dated February 8,
2022, February 21, 2022, and November 6, 2021, it is evident that the
Respondent allotted plots to the complainants. Since the Respondent failed to
register the plots in the complainants' names, they sought cancellation.
According to the agreements, the Respondent is liable to return the amount
paid. Therefore, the Respondent is obligated to repay the entire amount.
### Corrected Version:
18. Since 2022, the Respondent has been making false promises to the
complainants regarding the refund of their payments, which have not been
executed to date. It is unjust for the complainants to be denied interest on the
amounts paid. Furthermore, the Respondent's counsel has provided only
vague replies during hearings and has failed to submit a written reply despite
explicit directions. Additionally, the Respondent has consistently violated the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RE(R&D) Act) by deceiving the
public in various other projects, demonstrating malafide intentions.
19. Therefore, in the interest of the allottees, the Authority believes that the
complainants are entitled to interest. Under Sections 37 and 38 of the
RE(R&D) Act, the Authority is of the opinion that the Respondent should pay
interest as per Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules (TG RE(R&D) Rules), which stipulates the Marginal Cost
of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% interest. The current MCLR of the State Bank
is 8.65%, plus 2%.

4 of 6

20. As the agreement of sale is silent on the due date for handing over
possession or registration of the plots, the Authority shall consider the RERA
registration up to the validity date, i.e., 14.03.2023. Hence, the Respondent is
directed to pay the entire remaining amount paid by the complainants along
with interest at 10.65% per annum from the due date of 14.03.2023 until the
date of actual realization, within 90 days from the date of this order.
21. It is also noted that the Respondent has repaid a certain amount to
Complainants 1 and 3. Therefore, upon consideration, the Authority
concludes that the Respondent is liable to repay the remaining amount along
with interest to Complainants 1 and 3, and the full amount with interest to
Complainant 2, due to the cancellation resulting from the Respondent's
failure to register the plots.
22. The Respondent is directed to pay the entire amount owed to the
complainants along with interest at 10.65% per annum from the due date of
validity of RERA registration, i.e., 01.01.2022, until the date of actual
realization, within 90 days from the date of this order.
E. Directions of the Authority:
19. The Authority hereby issues the following directions under Section 37 of
the Act to ensure compliance with obligations entrusted to this Authority
under Section 34(f):
1. The Respondent is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the
complainants. Complainants 1 and 3 have received partial repayments, and
the remaining balance, along with interest calculated on the remaining
balance, must be refunded within 90 days from the date of this order. The
entire amount paid by Complainant 2 must also be refunded, along with
interest, within 90 days from the date of this order.
20. In light of the above-mentioned directions, the present complaint stands
disposed of. If the Respondent Builder fails to comply with this Order,
5 of 6

appropriate action, including the imposition of a penalty, will be taken as per
the provisions under Section 63 of the Act, 2016.
21. If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O.Ms.No.8, dated January 11, 2018, the Telangana
State Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real
Estate Appellate Tribunal to manage affairs under the Act until the regular
Tribunal is established) as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

6 of 6