Order Complaint No.134 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 134 of 2025
Dated: 2nd 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

Raju Burnwal
Anuradha Burnwal
(R/o 201, Block A, Cyber Ridge, Raja Rajeshwari Nagar, Kondapur Hyderabad - 500084)
…Complainants
Versus
M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP
(Rep by Designated Partner Vijay Kumar Yerram, Registered office at # 8-2-703/7/1/ and 8-2-703/7/1/a,
Vasavi Corporate Building, 4th floor, Road no. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – Telangana 500034)

…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on 11.07.2025
before this Authority in presence of Complainant in person and Respondents Counsels Sri D
Madhav Rao and M.K.Joy Raj; upon pursuing the material on record and on hearing arguments
of the both the parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order
is passed:
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 “TG RE(R&D) Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the
Respondents.
A. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainant, are as follows:
3.

The Complainant purchased a flat in March 2021 from M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP. The

flat in question is Flat No. 1303, situated on the 13th Floor, Tower 1, West Wing of the project
“Vasavi Lake City” at Hafeezpet. The project is registered with TG RERA under Registration
No. P02500001819. As per the Agreement of Sale (AOS), the legally committed date for
handover of the said flat and the entire project was August 2023. However, the Respondent

1 of 19

---

Subsequently, the next timeline communicated was February 2024, with a six-month

RERA extension as per the AOS. Again, the Respondent failed to deliver and did not provide
any communication explaining the delay.
5.

Thereafter, the Respondent indicated another deadline of February 2025, which is the

RERA deadline for the project “Vasavi Lake City” (Registration No. P02500001819). Even
this commitment was not honoured, and once again, no proactive communication regarding the
delay was made by the Respondent.
6.

The Complainant submits that all payments demanded were made promptly, amounting

to ₹70,13,030/- through bank transfers/cheques, and ₹38,09,219/- through bank loans from
Axis Bank, totalling ₹1,08,22,249/-. Despite timely payment, the Complainant alleges that only
ignorance and false assurances were received in return, with no delivery of the flat to date.
7.

The Complainant states that repeated follow-ups were made through the Customer

Relationship Manager, Mr. Rajnikanth, and through the Designated Partner, Mr. Vijay Kumar
Yerram, but promises were never fulfilled. The Complainant alleges that Tower 1 of the West
Wing, in which the said flat is situated, has been given least priority by the Respondent on the
ground that the majority of the flats therein belong to landowners.
8.

The Complainant further alleges that the entire project is progressing at a very slow

pace, with intentional delays by the Respondent. The last payment was made on 04.11.2023,
and thereafter hardly any progress was made. The Complainant claims severe financial
hardship, as EMIs for both the existing residence and the Vasavi flat have been paid since the
promised possession date of August 2023.
9.

The Complainant also raises an issue of size deviation in the flat, alleging that the

master bedroom balcony, child bedroom balcony, and utility area are all narrower than
specified in the AOS. Specifically:
a. Master Bedroom Balcony: 5 feet promised, 4 feet delivered.
b. Child Bedroom Balcony: 5 feet promised, 4 feet delivered.
c. Utility Area: 5 feet promised, 2.5 feet delivered.
B. Reliefs / Prayers:
10.

The Complainant, therefore, humbly prays that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased

to:

2 of 19

---

The Respondent contends that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on

facts, as the Complainant has not availed dispute resolution mechanisms provided in the AOS.
It is further stated that no legal notice was issued prior to filing the complaint.
12.

The Respondent submits that the project “Lake City – West” is lawfully developed

under registered documents with landowners for a total extent of 43,298.17 sq. yds., for which
necessary permissions, including land conversion and building permits, were obtained on
07.02.2020. The project comprises Towers 1 to 7 (cellar + ground + 14 upper floors) and a
clubhouse (stilt + 5 upper floors) over 40,869 sq. yds., and was registered with TG RERA on
20.03.2020 (Reg. No. P02500001819).
13.

The Complainant booked Flat No. W.11303 on 22.03.2021, measuring 1,940 sq. ft. with

parking, at a total consideration of ₹1,29,77,200/- as per the AOS. The Respondent was entitled
to extension of the registration of the project by the Authority as per law. The construction
commenced in the project and the authorities have been intimated from time to time of the
progress of development. The schedule also provides for amenities
14.

It was agreed that there should be no alterations to the sanctioned plan and the

specifications, which are clearly mentioned in Schedules D and E. It is apparent that under
Clause 1.11, the Petitioner has paid a sum of ₹27,25,212/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs

3 of 19

---

Clause 5 of the Agreement provides that the promoter shall abide by the time schedule

for completing the project as disclosed at the time of registration of the project with the
authority, and towards handing over the apartment and common areas to the Association,
allottee, or competent authority, as the case may be. Clause 7 (Possession of the Apartment):
Under Clause 7.1, the promoter agrees and understands that timely delivery of possession of the
apartment to the allottee and the common areas to the Association/competent Authority is the
essence of the agreement. The promoter agrees to hand over possession of the apartment, along
with complete common areas and all specifications, amenities, and facilities of the project in
place on or before 31 August 2023, with a grace period of six months, unless delayed due to
force majeure conditions.
17.

If delayed due to force majeure, the commitment period, grace period, and/or extended

delay period shall stand automatically extended to the extent of delay. The allottee shall not be
entitled to any compensation whatsoever, including delay compensation, during such delay.
The developer is taking all steps to complete the project and deliver possession. The delay is
justified as it squarely falls under force majeure.
18.

Under Clause 7.2, after obtaining the occupancy certificate from the competent

authority, the promoter shall offer in writing the possession of the apartment to the allottees
who have paid the amounts in terms of the agreement, to be taken within 2 months from the
date of issue of the occupancy certificate. Clause 9 deals with events of default and
consequences. In the event of default committed by the promoter, the promoter shall be liable
for consequences as mentioned in the agreement.
19.

While responding to the false complaint filed before this Hon’ble Authority, the

complainants have not approached with clean and fair facts but with an ulterior motive to make
unlawful gain. There has been material suppression regarding the facts of the case, the claims
made, and the relief sought. While admitting that there was an Agreement of Sale entered into
between the complainant and the Respondent, and that its terms are not in dispute, the
complainant has made false claims despite being aware of the true facts, thereby misleading
this Hon’ble Authority.

4 of 19

---

It is to be noted that this Hon’ble Authority is aware that the country and the world over

went through the COVID-19 pandemic, declared by the WHO in January 2020 as a public
health emergency. India confirmed its first cases in Delhi and Telangana.
21.

India declared a nationwide lockdown in March 2020 in phases. The Supreme Court of

India extended timelines under the Limitation Act and other statutes in Suo Motu Writ Petition
No. 3 of 2020, excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. This legal position directly
applies to the project timeline.
22.

The LAKE CITY-WEST project was sanctioned on 07-02-2020, just days before the

COVID-19 emergency. Due to lockdowns, migrant worker who formed the backbone of the
construction workforce were forced to return to their villages, creating a massive labour crisis.
This dislocation gravely impacted construction activities.
23.

Apart from the labour crisis, various other factors also affected the project timeline. The

cascading effect of these challenges was duly intimated to all customers.
24.

The repeated delays alleged by the complainant are not supported by evidence.

Typographical or clerical mistakes in the Agreement of Sale cannot be taken advantage of. The
Agreement dated 31-08-2021 mistakenly mentioned possession by 31-08-2023, which is
unrealistic for a project of this scale (Towers 1–7, G+14 floors, clubhouse, etc.), especially
under force majeure conditions.
25.

The complainant’s allegations are baseless, unsupported by evidence, and intended only

to harass the Respondent. The project is validly registered (Reg. No. P02500001819) up to 0702-2025, with extension granted up to 07-02-2026. The project was also delayed due to thirdparty disputes and litigations, including:
a) RERA Case No. 190/2020
b) WP No. 2694 of 2021
c) WP No. 13898 of 2022
d) WP No. 33433 of 2023
e) WA No. 584 of 2023
f) SLP Nos. 9694–9695 of 2023
g) WP No. 26301 of 2024 (pending)
26.
The developer has continuously communicated delays and informed flat buyers through
meetings and letters that possession would be handed over phase-wise

5 of 19

---

No interest can be claimed as the delay was due to force majeure.

28.
No compensation can be claimed without evidence of actual loss. The complainant has
not demonstrated any rational basis for compensation.
29.
The Respondent undertakes to deliver the flats on or before February 2026, as per the
extension granted. More than 90% of work is completed, while the complainant has only paid
75%, leaving arrears under Schedule C
30.
Once the complainant agreed that COVID-19 was a valid cause for delay, no
exceptional reason exists to claim compensation. Further, manual excavation of rocky site
conditions compounded difficulties and caused unavoidable delay.
31.
The complainant is not entitled to any relief as the causes for late delivery were beyond
the Respondent’s control
32.
The complaint is false, preposterous, and without foundation. It deserves to be
dismissed in the interest of justice, allowing the Respondent to complete and deliver the project
within the extended timeline.
D. Rejoinder:
33.

At the outset, the Complainants categorically deny each and every averment,

contention, and allegation made by the Respondent in its reply, except those specifically
admitted herein. Any statement contrary to record, unsupported by evidence, or intended to
mislead this Hon’ble Authority is specifically denied. The present complaint is fully
maintainable in law and on facts, being supported by documentary proof of the Respondent’s
repeated breaches of the Agreement for Sale (“AOS”) and the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
34.

The Respondent’s preliminary objection regarding non-adherence to contractual dispute

resolution mechanisms is untenable. The cause of action arises solely from the Respondent’s
persistent and inordinate delay in handing over possession, in breach of the AOS and statutory
timelines disclosed at the time of RERA registration. Such breach clearly falls within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Authority under Sections 12, 18 and 31 of the RE(R&D) Act.
Resorting to contractual pre-dispute mechanisms is neither a statutory pre-condition nor does it
oust this Authority’s jurisdiction.
35.

The Respondent’s plea that no legal notice was served prior to filing the complaint is

baseless. On several occasions, both in writing and in person, the Complainants duly intimated
the Respondent of its failure to adhere to promised possession timelines. Despite repeated
communications, the Respondent failed to provide a concrete solution, offering only false

6 of 19

---

The Respondent’s narrative regarding land acquisition, approvals from GHMC, or

project registration particulars is irrelevant. These facts are not in dispute but have no bearing
on the central issue, namely, the Respondent’s failure to honour the committed possession date
under the AOS.
37.

Likewise, the recitation of booking particulars, consideration amounts, carpet area, and

payment schedule is not disputed. However, these submissions are diversionary. The
undisputed fact remains that despite receipt of substantial consideration of approximately
₹1,08,22,249/- by 4 November 2023, the Respondent failed to deliver possession of Tower-1 as
assured.
38.

The Respondent’s claim of having periodically intimated allottees of progress and

revised timelines is expressly denied. No such proactive or formal intimation was given to the
Complainants despite four successive possession deadlines August 2023, February 2024,
February 2025, and June 2025 having lapsed. Such conduct amounts to gross deficiency in
service and unfair trade practice under the RE(R&D) Act.
39.

The Respondent’s reliance on Clause 7 (Possession) and invocation of Force Majeure is

wholly misconceived. The pandemic ended well before the possession date of 31 August 2023.
The last payment was made by the Complainants in November 2023, much after COVIDrelated restrictions had ceased. The Respondent has failed to establish any causal nexus
between the pandemic and the present delay. The plea of Force Majeure is a smokescreen to
evade statutory liability under Section 18.
40.

The allegations that the Complainants have approached this Authority with “ulterior

motives” or suppressed facts are baseless and defamatory. All relevant documents AOS,
payment receipts, and correspondence have been furnished. On the contrary, it is the
Respondent who has suppressed the true construction status and misled allottees regarding
realistic timelines.
41.

The Respondent’s extensive reliance on COVID-19, migrant labour crisis, or Supreme

Court orders on limitation is irrelevant. The AOS itself was executed on 31.08.2021 well after

7 of 19

---

The vague plea of “additional factors” and “cascading effects” has been made without

evidence. No credible documentary proof has been produced. Such bald averments cannot
justify breach of statutory obligations.
43.

The Respondent’s suggestion that labour crisis and cascading effects were duly

intimated to customers is false. No such communication was received by the Complainants. In
fact, despite payment of 80% of the total consideration by November 2023, the Respondent
failed to complete Tower-1. Clearly, the invocation of COVID-19 is only an afterthought to
cover mala fide delay.
44.

These assertions are nothing but unfounded and untenable excuses. The Respondents

have never intimated us regarding any such delays. The plea of COVID-19 is being used
merely as a convenient loophole to mask their mala fide intentions of extracting 80% of the
total consideration without completing the project. My payment of 80% was completed in
November 2023; since then, no completion of Tower 1 has taken place. Where was COVID-19
at that time? This clearly demonstrates a premeditated and wrongful intent to misappropriate
customers’ hard-earned money, thereby subjecting us to continuous mental harassment and
financial loss on account of interest and EMIs being paid every month.
45.

The Respondent has claimed that the possession date of 31.08.2023 in the AOS is a

clerical error. This contention is frivolous. An agreement drafted and executed by an
experienced developer cannot be brushed aside as a mere “typographical mistake.” The
Respondent cannot now disown its own contractual commitment.
46.

The Respondent’s assertion that the project registration has validity until February

2026 is irrelevant. What is material is the specific possession date promised to the
Complainants under the AOS, which has been breached repeatedly August 2023, February
2024, February 2025, and June 2025.
47.

The Respondent seeks to rely on pendency of third-party disputes to explain delay. The

Complainants were not privy to such disputes. In any case, it is the Respondent’s obligation to
resolve external disputes without prejudicing allottees’ rights. The Complainants have already

8 of 19

---

The Respondent’s claim that communications about phase-wise delivery were sent to

allottees is false. The Complainants have not received any such acknowledged communication.
If such documents exist, let the Respondent produce them before this Hon’ble Authority
49.

The Respondent has denied diversion of funds and execution of unregistered side

agreements. The Complainants submit that such matters are within the exclusive knowledge of
the Respondent. If the Respondent asserts compliance, it must produce complete financial
statements, fund flow records, and details of agreements before this Authority
50.

The Respondent’s denial of avoiding meetings and refusal to address grievances is

incorrect. The Complainants maintain that despite repeated follow-ups, their grievances have
not been addressed
51.

The Respondent’s general assertion of compliance with the Act, quarterly updates, and

statutory obligations is unsubstantiated. The reality is that possession deadlines have been
breached multiple times, and no justifiable force majeure exists.
E. Points for Consideration:
52.

Upon a careful perusal of the record and the submissions advanced by both parties, oral

as well as written, this Authority is of the view that the following issues arise for determination
in the present complaint:
1. Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority?
2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
F. Observations of the Authority:
Point 1:
53.

The Respondent has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present

complaint on the ground that the Complainants failed to first resort to the contractual dispute
resolution mechanism envisaged in the Agreement of Sale, namely an amicable settlement by
mutual discussion, prior to approaching this Authority.
54.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

55.

The relevant Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of Sale is reproduced below

for ready reference:
9 of 19

---

It is clear from the above that the clause only requires the parties to attempt an amicable

settlement by mutual discussion. Such a clause is at best directory and cannot oust or restrict
the statutory jurisdiction of this Authority.
57.

Section 79 of the RE(R&D) Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in

respect of any matter which this Authority, the Adjudicating Officer, or the Appellate Tribunal
is empowered to determine. Likewise, Section 88 clarifies that the provisions of the RE(R&D)
Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. Thus, the intention of the legislature
is that remedies under this beneficial legislation must remain open to allottees, irrespective of
any private clause for amicable settlement.
58.

Even in cases where agreements contained arbitration clauses (which is not the case

here), the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble NCDRC have consistently held that such
clauses cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of consumer fora or statutory authorities
constituted under special enactments.
59.

In National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy (2012) 2 SCC 506, the

Supreme Court held that remedies under special statutes are in addition to, and not in
derogation of, other remedies. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
*“49. Support to the above view is also lent by Section 79 of the recently enacted
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Real Estate
Act").
Section
79
of
the
said
Act
reads
as
follows:‘79. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or
the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no
injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action
taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.’
It can thus, be seen that the said provision expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court in respect of any matter which the Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
established under Subsection (1) of Section 20 or the Adjudicating Officer, appointed
under Sub-section (1) of Section 71, or the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal established
under Section 43 of the Real Estate Act, is empowered to determine. Hence, in view of

10 of 19

---

60.

Similarly, in Aftab Singh &Ors. v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. &Ors. (Consumer Case No.

701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017), it was held that arbitration clauses in builder-buyer
agreements cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The said view was later upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512–23513 of 2017. The relevant para reads:
25. This Court in the series of judgments as noticed above considered the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act, L986 os well as Arbitration Act, 1996 and
laid down that complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a special remedy,
despite there being an arbitration agreement the proceedings before Consumer
Forum have to go on and no ercor committed by Consumer Forum on rejecting
the application. There is reason for not interjecting proceedings under Consumer
Protection Act on the strength an arbitration agreement by Act, 1996. The remedy
under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy provided to a consumer when there is
a defect in any goods or services. The complaint means any allegation in writing
made by a complainant has also been explained in Section 2(c) of the Act. The
remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is confined to complaint by consumer
as defined under the Act for defect or deficiencies caused by a service provider,
the cheap and a quick remedy has been provided to the consumer which is the
object and purpose of the Act as noticed above."

61.

In the present matter, there is only a clause requiring amicable discussion before

invoking remedies. Such a clause is directory at best, and cannot override or defeat the statutory
right of the Complainant to approach this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly, this
Authority has no hesitation in holding that the Complainant is well within its rights to approach
this forum without being first compelled to pursue an amicable settlement under the
Agreement. The objection of the Respondent as to maintainability is therefore rejected.
Point No. 2: Delay in Possession
62.

The Complainant has sought relief on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay

in handing over of possession of the subject flat.

11 of 19

---

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 31.08.2021, executed

between the parties, clearly stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be handed over
by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of six months, ending on 28.02.2024. The Respondent has
failed to hand over possession even as on date. Further, although the project was registered with
TG RERA up to February 2025 and later extended until February 2026, the project remains
incomplete.
64.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has repeatedly given false assurances of

completion, while allottees continue to suffer. The Respondent, conversely, attributes the delay
to the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming force majeure, citing the nationwide lockdown beginning
March 2020, the impact on migrant labour, and consequential delays.
(i) Whether the Covid-19 pandemic can be taken as a valid shield by the Respondent in the
present case?
65.

This Authority finds no merit in such a contention. The Agreement of Sale was

admittedly executed on 31.08.2021, much after the onset and near subsiding of the Covid-19
pandemic. The Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing global circumstances,
nevertheless executed the Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by
August 2023 with the grace period of 6 months i.e by 28.02.2024. Having consciously
undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective justification, rely
on Covid-19 as a defence to escape its contractual and statutory obligations. Such conduct
clearly amounts to holding out false assurances with mala fide intent.
66.

It is a settled principle that once a promoter has chosen to register a project and enter

into binding contractual commitments with allottees, he does so with full knowledge of the
risks, constraints, and challenges of the market. At the time of entering into the Agreement of
Sale with the present Complainant, the Respondent was already aware of the Covid-related
disruptions, as well as the Government notifications granting moratoriums for project
completion timelines. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent chose to provide a specific
assurance of delivery by August 2023 with grace period of 6 months i.e 28.02.2024.
67.

This Authority aligns with the observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in

Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine
Bom 9302], wherein at para 119 it was categorically observed:
"While the proposal is submitted, the Promoter is supposed to be

12 of 19

---

The above dictum fortifies the principle that the promoter, being structurally at an

advantageous position with respect to project information and market realities, is under a
statutory duty to provide realistic timelines. The framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 reinforces this obligation by mandating timely completion and
possession within the period stipulated in the Agreement of Sale.
69.

Therefore, the plea of Covid-19 as a force majeure defence in the present case is wholly

untenable. The Respondent, having executed the Agreement of Sale in August 2021 with
specific possession timelines, cannot now seek to retrospectively attribute delays to the
pandemic. Accordingly, this Authority holds that the reliance on Covid-19 as a shield stands
rejected.
(ii) Extension of Registration
70.

The Respondent has further contended that, since extensions have been granted by this

Authority, the project timeline now stands extended up to February 2026, and therefore
possession shall be delivered by then. The Complainants, however, have questioned the validity
and effect of such extensions.
71.

At the outset, it must be clarified that under the scheme of the RE(R&D) Act:
“An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and
promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or
building, as the case may be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and
transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate
sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute
redressal and also to establish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from
the decisions, directions or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and
the adjudicating officer and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.”

72.

The paramount objective is twofold: protection of consumer interest, and ensuring

completion of projects in an efficient manner. Denial of extension during the Covid-19
disruption would have resulted in projects being stalled, to the grave prejudice of allottees. It
was in this context that this Authority, balancing the equities, granted extensions in line with
the notifications issued by theTelangana RERA:

13 of 19

---

73.

Accordingly, an aggregate 18 months’ extension was applied across projects to

safeguard larger consumer interest. However, it is equally well settled that such regulatory
extensions cannot dilute the contractual rights of individual allottees under their respective
Agreements of Sale, nor can they displace the statutory rights flowing from Section 18 of the
RE(R&D) Act.
74.

In the present matter, it is evident that the Respondent has unilaterally revised

possession timelines first to February 2024, and thereafter to February 2026 due to the
extension taken without consultation or consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions
are impermissible. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9302], while upholding the
constitutional validity of RERA, categorically observed:
Para 119 “The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract
between the flat purchaser and the promoter."
Para 256 of this Judgment further clarifies that
“by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh timeline
under Section 4(2)(l)(C), he is not absolved of the liability under the
agreement for sale”
75.

The above dicta makes it abundantly clear that any extension granted by the Authority,

or revised timelines uploaded on the TG RERA project registration portal, do not ipso facto
alter or bind the allottees’ contractual rights. The agreed date of possession remains as
stipulated in the Agreement for Sale, and unilateral extensions by the promoter cannot be
foisted upon allottees to their detriment.
76.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the revised possession dates mentioned by the

Respondent, whether while seeking extensions before the Authority or as updated on the
registration portal, cannot be treated as binding on the Complainants.
(iii)Relief under Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act:
77.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant has paid about ₹1,08,22,249/- out of the total

sale consideration of ₹1,29,77,200/-, diligently and without default. The Agreement clearly
stipulated possession by 31.08.2023, with grace period of 6 months to 28.02.2024. Admittedly,
possession has not been delivered.
14 of 19

---

The Respondent’s contention that 90% work is complete and that the complainant has

paid only 75% consideration is wholly unsustainable. The complainant has already paid more
than a crore approximately 80–90% of the agreed consideration. Despite receiving such
substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is manifest
that the Respondent gave false assurances, being fully conscious of the market situation, yet
assuring dates of completion that it had no capacity to honour. More time have elapsed beyond
the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor possession handed over.
79.

The Respondent further seeks to shift the burden on the complainant by contending that

the balance amount is unpaid. This plea is untenable. The law does not permit a defaulter to
take advantage of its own breach. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusheshwar
Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 2000]:
It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue
and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation
of law. It is sound principle that he, who prevents a thing from being done
shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put
it differently, "a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out
of his own wrong.

80.

Therefore, the contention that the complainant has not paid the total balance is rejected.

A promoter in default cannot compel an allottee to keep paying indefinitely, especially when no
tangible progress exists and timelines are unilaterally extended to cover its own deficiencies..
81.

Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:
(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an
apartment, plot or building,—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may
be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of
suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other
reason,
he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to
withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to
return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building,
as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this
behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project,
he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the
handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.

15 of 19

---

82.

This statutory right of allottee is unqualified and absolute. Attention is drawn to the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil
Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patni & Others,
wherein it was held:
"In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or
is unable to give possession of an apartment by the date specified in the
agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the
amount received in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to
withdraw from the project. Such a right of the allottee is 'without
prejudice to any other remedy available to him'. This right is unqualified,
and if availed, the deposited money must be refunded with interest as
prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates that if the allottee
does not intend to withdraw from the project, they are entitled to interest
for every month of delay until possession is handed over. The allottee may
proceed under Section 18(1) or the proviso thereto."
83.
Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021, M/s Newtech Promoters and
Developers Private Limited vs. State of UP & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
"Section 18(1) of the Act spells out the consequences if the promoter
fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an 9 of 10
apartment, plot, or building in terms of the agreement for sale. The
allottee/home buyer holds an unqualified right to seek a refund of the
amount with interest as prescribed."

84.

Further, as earlier observed, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors

Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2017) SCC Online Bom 9302] clarified that RERA
registration or its extension cannot rewrite the contract between parties. The date assured under
the Agreement of Sale, executed with the allottee’s consent, shall prevail. Thus, the Respondent
is bound by Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D)Act, which mandates adherence to the terms of
the Agreement of Sale.

16 of 19

---

Accordingly, this Authority finds the Respondent to be in clear breach of both statutory

and contractual obligations. The Complainant is entitled to relief under Section 18 of the
RE(R&D)Act. Specifically, the Complainant shall be paid interest at the prescribed rate for the
entire period of delay from 28.02.2024 until the actual handing over of possession. As regards
compensation, jurisdiction lies with the Adjudicating Officer under Form N, and the
Complainant may seek such relief separately. Point 2 answered accordingly.
86.

This Authority cannot remain oblivious to the larger pattern of violations. It is noted

with grave concern that more than fifty complaints have already been received against this very
Respondent in respect of the subject project. Such repeated defaults and false assurances strike
at the very root of the confidence that homebuyers are entitled to repose under the protective
framework of the RE(R&D) Act.
87.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RE(R&D) Act explicitly emphasizes

“greater accountability towards consumers and to inject transparency, efficiency, and
discipline in the real estate sector”. The conduct of the Respondent herein is in gross
derogation of that legislative mandate. If such violations are permitted to persist, the very soul
of the Act would stand diluted and the protection promised to allottees rendered illusory.
88.

Accordingly, this Authority hereby sternly warns the Respondent promoter that any

further default, non-compliance, or failure to deliver possession within the assured timelines, or
any fresh grievances brought to notice by the allottees, shall invite Section 63of the RE(R&D)
Act.
89.

This Authority shall not hesitate to take the strictest view in future, for the Act was

enacted not as a mere regulatory framework but as a beneficial legislation to protect innocent
homebuyers from the very malaise exemplified by the conduct of this Respondent.
90.

The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the project and hand over possession to

the Complainants within the stipulated period. The Authority has also taken note of the
contention of the Respondent that the Complainants did not adhere to the payment schedule,
which was linked to the progress of construction. However, it is observed that the Respondent
has failed to produce any documentary evidence showing that reminder notices or formal
demands were issued to the Complainants in this regard.
91.

It is clarified that in the event the Complainants have defaulted in making payments as

per the agreed schedule, the Respondent shall be entitled, under Section 19(6) of the Real

17 of 19

---

At the same time, the Complainants are equally bound by their statutory obligations

under Section 19(7) of the RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly, the Complainants are directed to make
payment of any balance amount due under the agreed payment schedule, if not already
discharged. The duty to adhere to the payment plan rests with both parties, and compliance is
essential to ensure timely completion and delivery of the project.
G. Directions of the Authority:
93.

In view of the findings and observations recorded hereinabove, this Authority proceeds

to issue the following directions:
a. The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding the maintainability of the
complaint on account of the Dispute Resolution Clause in the Agreement of Sale stands
rejected. The complaint is maintainable before this Authority.
b. The Respondent’s reliance on the Covid-19 pandemic as a ground of force majeure is
held untenable, since the Agreement of Sale was executed after the subsiding of the
pandemic and with full knowledge of the prevailing circumstances.
c. The extension of registration taken by this Respondent cannot dilute the contractual
rights of the Complainant under the Agreement of Sale. The date of possession as
stipulated in the Agreement shall prevail.
d. The Respondent is held liable for failure to hand over possession of the subject flat by
the agreed date i.e., 28.02.2024 (inclusive of grace period).
e. The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.85% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the
amounts paid, with effect from 01.03.2024 until actual handing over of lawful
possession. The Respondent shall pay the arrears accrued up to the date of this Order
within sixty (60) days, and shall thereafter continue to pay the accruing interest on a
monthly basis, on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month, until possession is
delivered.

18 of 19

---

Having regard to the repeated defaults and the large number of complaints

already pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns
the Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by
allottees shall invite proceedings under Sections 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
95.

The complaint is accordingly allowed in part, in terms of the above directions.

96.

Failure to comply with above said directions by the Respondent shall attract

penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016
97.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

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

19 of 19

---