Order Complaint No.138 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 138 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

Innamuri Naga Lakshmi
Innamuri Venkata Hari Kumar
(R/o 50307, Indu Fortune Fields Gardenia, Main Road, KPHB Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072)
…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.

An Agreement of Sale was executed on 23rd November 2021 between the Complainants

and M/s. Vasavi Realtors. The discussions preceding the agreement commenced nearly two
months prior. During such discussions, the Complainants repeatedly raised queries regarding the
possibility of delay on account of COVID-19. However, they were assured that no such delay

1 OF 25

---

Even after execution of the Agreement in November 2021, and on several occasions

during the year 2022, the Complainants enquired about the status of construction and the
possibility of delay. Only in August 2022, the Respondent informed that there may be a delay
and that possession would not be handed over by August 2023, but that the project would instead
be completed by August 2024. This information was conveyed orally by the CRM team in person
when the Complainants approached the Respondent’s office at Vasavi Lake City. No official
written communication was issued, despite assurances that the same would be sent.
5.

The first official communication regarding delay was issued only after the meeting held

on 8th September 2024, wherein the Respondent again stated that there would be further delay
and that possession would be handed over by February/March 2025. The Respondent published
tentative timelines for specific works such as fixing of doors, laying of tiles, installation of lifts,
etc., but failed to adhere to the same.
6.

Several meetings were conducted both prior to and subsequent to 8th September 2024. In

each of these meetings, the Respondent assured that the Minutes of Meeting (MoM) along with
the agreed timelines would be circulated on the next day. However, the MoM was never issued,
and at each subsequent meeting, the issue of non-circulation of the previous MoM was raised,
but the same pattern repeated.
7.

On 25th January 2025, nearly 20+ buyers gathered at the Respondent’s office seeking

clarity since February 2025 was approaching and no official confirmation regarding possession
had been given. The Chairman and Director of Vasavi Lake City were not physically present but
addressed the gathering telephonically. Even during this meeting, the Respondent failed to
disclose that an application for further extension had already been submitted. It was only in the
following week that the Complainants received an official notice from the Respondent regarding
another extension.
8.

The West Wing Tower No. 3 building structure has been completed for more than three

years. However, since possession has not been handed over, the quality and longevity of the
structure are questionable.

2 OF 25

---

In view of the facts stated above, the Complainants pray for the following relief(s):
I.

Compensation for delay in handover of the apartment, inter alia, on account of:

a) Continued expenditure towards rental accommodation, which would have been saved had
timely possession been given.
b) Mental agony suffered due to inability to plan school changes for the children.
c) Mental stress caused to the Complainants and their family owing to repeated false
assurances and missed timelines.
d) Loss of interest on the amounts already paid to the builder.
II.

Concern regarding construction quality. In view of the inordinate delay, the Complainants
apprehend that the builder may have compromised on construction quality. The
Complainants seek appropriate directions for verification of quality and suitable
compensation in case of deficiencies.

III.

Interest for the delayed possession.

C. . Reply of the Respondent:
11.

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.30307 on 09.10.2020 entered into agreement oon

23.11.2021, measuring 2235 sq. ft. with parking, at a total consideration of ₹73,95,500/- 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

3 OF 25

---

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 ₹40,00,000/- (towards the booking amount as per Schedule
C, and the balance payments were also to be made as per the agreed schedule.
16.

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 25

---

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 25

---

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.

Application filed is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be

dismissed. Such of those allegations which are not admitted are hereby denied: This objection is
vague and legally unfounded. The complaint is filed under Section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act,
which grants an aggrieved allottee an explicit statutory right to seek relief before this Hon’ble
Authority. The Agreement of Sale dated 12th March 2021 clearly stipulates the possession date
as 31st August 2023, which the Respondent has failed to meet. The complaint is well within legal
bounds and deserves full consideration.
34.

The application is not maintainable for the reasons that the applicant, as per the

agreement, has not availed methods as provided in the agreement in the event of any dispute
between the parties. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed: This contention is
misconceived and devoid of merit. The Respondent’s reliance on internal dispute resolution
mechanisms in the Agreement of Sale is irrelevant and legally unsustainable. Section 31 of the
RE(R&D)Act grants the Complainant, as an aggrieved allottee, an absolute statutory right to
approach this Hon’ble Authority for redressal of grievances, including delay in possession and
deficiency in services. The jurisdiction of RERA is not ousted by arbitration or alternative clauses
6 OF 25

---

The applicant has not issued any legal notice before filing this complaint; therefore, on

this ground also, the application is liable to be dismissed: There is no legal mandate under the
RE(R&D)Act to issue a prior legal notice before filing a complaint under Section 31. The
Complainant has adhered to the law, and this ground is irrelevant and an attempt to delay
proceedings.
36.

Respondent has agreed to develop the project LAKE CITY-WEST and has obtained the

rights lawfully from the owners under registered documents whereby the landowners have
entrusted the Respondent with a total land admeasuring 43,298.17 sq. yds., which land is utilized
for developing a residential project named LAKE CITY WEST, hereinafter called the "Project,"
after obtaining the relevant requisite documents from the landowners. The Respondents have
made arrangements to obtain the requisite permissions as envisaged under law: The Complainant
does not dispute the Respondent’s development rights. The issue lies in the Respondent’s failure
to deliver possession on time as per contractual obligations, despite holding such rights.
37.

The Respondent has obtained permission to convert the land and also obtained the

building permission for construction of multi-storied residential apartments dated 7th February
2020. The project consists of Towers 1 to 7 consisting of cellars plus ground + 14 upper floors,
clubhouse consisting of one stilt + 5 upper floors. The total land for the project is 40,869 sq. yds:
While approvals are acknowledged, they do not excuse the Respondent from failing to deliver
possession within the agreed timeline. Having permission does not discharge the legal
responsibility of timely execution and handover.
38.

After having obtained the permission from the authorities, the project was registered with

the authority vide registration no: P02500001819 dated 20th March 2020: While the project’s
RERA registration is acknowledged, the Respondent has grossly failed to abide by the obligations
accompanying such registration. Merely obtaining registration does not absolve the promoter
from adhering to statutory duties under the RE(R&D) Act, particularly timely possession,
transparency, and fair dealing. The Respondent’s post-registration conduct shows disregard for
7 OF 25

---

The applicant was allotted an apartment in the project vide booking dated 09.10.2020 and

was allotted apartment number W.30307, on the 3rd floor in block/Tower no: 3, having an area
of 1650 sq.ft. along with parking as permissible under law. As per the Agreement of Sale, the
carpet area of the scheduled apartment is 1260 sq.ft., exclusive veranda balcony area is 168 sq.ft.,
with an interest in the common area of 487 sq.ft., with an undivided right and interest in the
scheduled project land of 51 sq. yds. The total consideration agreed under the Agreement of Sale
is Rs. 73, 95,000/-. The Agreement provides for the schedule apartment, which deals with area
schedule B in the plan. Schedule C is the terms and conditions of the payment accepted by the
parties: The Respondent’s emphasis on the booking date of 09.10.2020 is irrelevant. The
Agreement of Sale dated 23rd November 2021 is the binding document governing rights,
obligations, and timelines, including the possession commitment of 31st August 2023. The
Complainant has paid Rs. 69,79,270/- in line with Schedule C, with the balance due only at
handover, which has not occurred. There is no default by the Complainant, and the Respondent’s
suggestion to the contrary is misleading. The Respondent fails to address the core issue of
inordinate delay, and the Complainant is entitled to remedies under Section 18(1) of the
RE(R&D) Act.
40.

The Respondent was entitled to an extension of the registration of the project by the

Authority as per law based on the reasons. The construction commenced in the project, and the
authorities have been intimated from time to time periodically of the development in the project
schedule, which also provides for the amenities: The Respondent’s reliance on a RERA extension
is legally flawed. The possession date of 31st August 2023, as per the Agreement of Sale, prevails
for assessing delay, irrespective of regulatory extensions. Section 19(2) of the RE(R&D) Act
entitles the allottee to possession as per the Agreement. Updates to the Authority must be
transparently reflected to allottees, which the Respondent failed to do. The proposed delivery
date of February 2026, 2.5 years beyond the agreed timeline, renders the contract meaningless
and violates RERA’s protective framework. The Respondent must be held accountable under
Sections 18 and 19.
8 OF 25

---

It was agreed that there should be no alterations to the sanction plan and the specifications,

which are clearly mentioned in Schedule D and E. It is apparent as per clause no: 1.11, the
petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 57,45,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs Forty Five Thousand
only) towards the booking amount as per Schedule C, and the balance payments to be paid were
also provided to be paid as per the schedule: The Complainant acknowledges the payment of Rs.
57,45,000/- as per Clause 1.11. The Respondent’s focus on Schedules D and E is irrelevant to
the complaint, which pertains to delay in possession, not alterations. There is no payment default
by the Complainant, as the balance is due only at handover. The Respondent’s failure to deliver
possession by 31st August 2023, despite receiving 81% of the consideration, entitles the
Complainant to relief under Section 18.
41.

Clause no: 5 of the Agreement provides 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 to the allottee and the common areas to the Association
or competent authority, as the case may be. CLAUSE NO: 7 POSSESSION OF THE
APARTMENT under clause no: 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 or the
competent authority, as the case may be, is the essence of the Agreement. The promoter agrees
to hand over possession of the apartment, along with ready and complete common areas with all
specifications, amenities, and facilities of the project in place on or before 31 August 2023, and
six months of period, unless there is delay or failure due to force majeure conditions. Apartment
if delayed due to force majeure as mentioned herein, the Commitment Period and/or the Grace
Period and/or the Extended Delay Period, as the case may be, shall stand extended automatically
to the extent of the delay caused under the force majeure circumstances. The allottee shall not be
entitled to any compensation whatsoever, including Delay Compensation for the period of such
delay by virtue of law. Developer is taking all steps to complete the project and deliver for which
it is mentioned hereunder the date. Delay is being justified for reasons which squarely fall under
force majeure: The Respondent selectively cites clauses while ignoring their binding obligation
to deliver possession by 31st August 2023, as per Clause 7.1. Even with the six-month grace
period, the delay extends well beyond February 2025, rendering the force majeure claim
untenable. The Agreement was signed on 23rd November 2021, post-COVID-19 lockdowns,
when the Respondent was aware of all circumstances. Force majeure cannot override Section
18(1) of the RE(R&D)Act, which entitles the allottee to interest for delays. The Respondent has
provided no evidence of force majeure invocation, timely notification, or mitigation efforts. The
9 OF 25

---

Under clause no: 7.2, the procedure for taking possession, the promoter, after obtaining

the occupancy certificate from the competent authority, shall offer in writing the portion of the
apartment to the allottees who paid all the amount in terms of the Agreement to be taken within
2 months from the date of issue of the occupancy certificate by the authorities. Clause no: 9 deals
with events of default and consequences in the event of any default committed by the promoter;
the promoter shall be liable to consequences as mentioned in the Agreement: The Respondent’s
reliance on Clause 7.2 is misplaced, as no occupancy certificate (OC) has been obtained or
communicated to the Complainant, nullifying this clause’s applicability. Clause 9, addressing
promoter defaults, is triggered by the Respondent’s breach of the possession timeline under
Clause 7.1. The Complainant has fulfilled all payment obligations, and the delay lies solely with
the Respondent. The Hon’ble Authority is urged to enforce remedies under Section 18(1) for
interest and other appropriate directions.
43.

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

complainants have not come with full clean fair with facts but with an ulterior motive to make
unlawful gain. There has been material suppression with regard to the facts of the case with
regard to the claim that has been made and the relief that has been sought from this Hon’ble
Authority, while admitting that there has been an Agreement of Sale that it entered into between
the complainant and respondent. Similarly, the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Sale
have been mentioned clearly is not in dispute. While not disputing the terms & conditions of the
Agreement, the complainant has before this Hon’ble Authority making certain false claims, in
spite of being aware of the same and trying to mislead and suppress some very basic and
fundamental issues that are involved in this particular case: The Complainant categorically denies
the Respondent’s baseless and defamatory allegations. The complaint is grounded in the
Agreement of Sale, payment receipts, correspondence, and documented delays, all submitted to
this Hon’ble Authority. The Respondent’s failure to deliver possession by 31st August 2023 is
undisputed. Accusing the Complainant of ulterior motives is a diversionary tactic to malign a
legitimate grievance. Approaching this Hon’ble Authority is a statutory right under RERA, and
the Respondent’s remarks are contemptuous and reflect disregard for due process. The
Complainant urges the Authority to treat these statements seriously and hold the Respondent
accountable.
10 OF 25

---

It is required to be noticed that the Hon’ble Authority is very well aware of the fact that

the country and the world over has gone through a medical emergency called COVID-19 where
different symptoms of unusual pneumonia-like illness started and took a heavy toll on human
life, and it was in January 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak
as a public health emergency of international concern. Following the widespread outbreak of the
disease, the Government of India at that time was no exception and confirmed that there have
been two cases in India in the national capital city of Delhi and another in Telangana State: The
Respondent’s reliance on COVID-19 is misleading. The Agreement was executed on 23rd
November 2021, post-lockdowns, when the Respondent committed to possession by 31st August
2023 with full knowledge of the pandemic. The delay from 2023 to 2025 cannot be attributed to
COVID-19, as the real estate sector had stabilized by 2023. This is a convenient scapegoat, and
the Respondent must be held accountable under Section 18(1) for the unjustified delay.
45.

Multiple cases were reported from different countries, and India declared a nationwide

lockdown in March 2020 in a phased manner; the country was in complete lockdown from March
2020 and went on to be locked down as the entire world suffered on account of COVID-19. Cases
started increasing; vaccinations have been put in place by the government. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court had extended the timeline for cases under the Limitation Act in SUO MOTU WRIT
PETITION NO. 3 OF 2020. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under various laws: The Supreme
Court’s extensions under SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 3 OF 2020 apply to limitation
periods for legal proceedings, not contractual obligations under the RE(R&D)Act. The
Agreement was executed post-lockdown on 23rd November 2021,, and the Respondent’s
commitment to deliver by 31st August 2023 was made with full awareness of the situation. These
extensions are irrelevant to the Respondent’s failure to meet contractual and statutory duties
under RERA.
46.

Now with reference to the case on hand, it is pertinent to submit that project LAKE CITY-

WEST was sanctioned by GHMC for construction on 07-02-2020, a few days before COVID-19
was declared a national medical emergency. As mentioned in the preceding para, COVID-19 had
its impact on building construction as most of the labour used in building were migrants who
moved back home due to the lockdown: The Respondent’s claim that labour migration due to
COVID-19 caused the delay is inapplicable, as the Complainant’s unit in Tower 3 was
structurally completed over 18 months ago. No meaningful progress has been made since,
11 OF 25

---

Respondents have various additional factors apart from the labour force totally leaving

the project site for a good period of time, which had a cascading effect on the complete project,
which has totally affected timelines planned by the construction team, which again was intimated
to all customers from time to time: The Respondent’s vague reference to “additional factors” and
“cascading effects” lacks specificity and evidence. Claims of 90% completion and issued demand
notes are unsubstantiated, as no possession has been offered. The Complainant received no
proactive communication, only responses after persistent follow-ups. The delay, despite 81%
payment and structural completion, reflects negligence and warrants relief under Section 18(1).
48.

Repeated delays as alleged by the Complainant are not based on evidence compared to

the Respondent’s claim, which is based on evidence. Some clerical & typo mistakes in the
Agreement of Sale need to be ignored as the staff have not properly verified documents while
executing the same, leading to false claims or taking advantage of the same, which is not proper
in law, inasmuch as the Agreement of Sale dated 23rd November 2021,declares that possession
will be delivered on 31-08-2023, which is a mistake as no project of this magnitude could be
completed, which was inflicted by force majeure conditions: The Respondent’s claim that the
possession date in the Agreement was a “clerical mistake” is alarming and self-incriminating,
indicating a breakdown in internal processes and a reckless approach to binding contracts. The
Agreement was freely signed, and no correction was raised until this complaint. Claiming the
timeline was unrealistic suggests misrepresentation to secure bookings. Force majeure is
inapplicable, as previously argued, and the Respondent must be held accountable for breach and
misrepresentation.
49.

Complainant’s allegations are factually baseless, not supported by any evidence; they are

made only to harass this Respondent to claim damages. This Hon’ble Authority registered project
vide registration no: P02500001819 dated 20 March 2020, valid up to 07-02-2025, for which we
sought extension granted up to 07-02-2026: The Complainant has submitted extensive evidence,
including the Agreement, payment receipts, correspondence, and documented delays. The
Respondent’s accusation of harassment is baseless and defamatory. The RERA extension to

12 OF 25

---

We also brought to the notice of allottees some disputes filed by a third party were

contested, almost all disposed except two, which also affected the project and caused delay.
Following are the cases filed: 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 NO.96949695 OF 2023, g) WP NO.26301 OF 2024 (Pending): Third-party litigation cannot justify delay,
as the Respondent is responsible under Section 11(3)(a) to ensure the project is free of
encumbrances. No proactive disclosure of these cases or their impact on timelines was made to
the Complainant. The Agreement contains no clause making delivery conditional on litigation
outcomes. The Respondent’s failure to mitigate these risks cannot penalize the Complainant, and
relief under RERA is warranted.
51.

Developer sent communications indicating the delay in completing the project; flat buyers

were informed that every action is being put in place to complete the project and deliver as soon
as possible in a phased manner: The Respondent has not produced evidence of proactive, written
communication disclosing delays. Minutes of meetings were shared only after buyer follow-ups,
with revised timelines repeatedly dishonoured. This reflects a calculated approach to deflect
pressure. The Complainant’s pursuit of relief under RERA is reasonable and justified.
52.

There can be no interest claimed for the delay of the project as the facts put before the

Hon’ble Authority are just and reasonable, and no material facts have been suppressed by the
Respondents. The explanation to Section 6 states that “force majeure” shall mean a case of war,
flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake, or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the
regular development of the real estate project: The Complainant seeks interest under Section
18(1), which mandates interest for every month of delay. The Agreement was signed postCOVID-19 lockdowns, and the delay from 2023 to 2025 cannot be attributed to force majeure.
The Respondent’s claim is legally inapplicable, and the Complainant is entitled to statutory
interest.
53.

There can be no compensation claimed for loss or injury or for mental agony and physical

harassment as alleged. The Complainant has to show evidence of suffering, which is missing.
Compensation cannot be claimed arbitrarily; a rational basis must be demonstrated: The
Respondent’s insensitivity to the Complainant’s mental agony, logistical hardship, and financial
13 OF 25

---

The Respondent shall deliver constructed flats on or before February 2026, as per the

extension granted by this Hon’ble Authority. More than 90% of the work is completed, but the
Complainant has paid only 75% and is in arrears under Schedule C: The Complainant has paid
81% (Rs. 57,45,000/-), not 75%, as per Schedule C, with the balance due at handover. The
Respondent’s claim of 90% completion is unsubstantiated, as no possession has been offered.
The extension to February 2026 does not override the contractual date of 31st August 2023 under
Section 19(2). The Respondent’s rocky site excuse lacks evidence and was not communicated
timely. The Complainant is entitled to relief under Section 18(1).
55.

the Complainant reiterates that any additional claims by the Respondent lacking evidence

or specificity are baseless. The focus remains on the delay and statutory entitlements under
RERA.
56.

Looked from all aspects, the complaint is preposterous, false, bereft of any foundation to

seek any relief, and therefore liable to be dismissed for detailed reasons stated with an
undertaking by the Respondent that every effort is being put to deliver the flat to all allottees
irrespective of any complaint filed or otherwise. Respondent has acquired a good name in the
realty sector, delivered projects time-bound, with no complaint before any forum till date except
this batch: The Respondent’s denial of liability disregards the binding Agreement of Sale and
RERA’s statutory safeguards. The Complainant never agreed to extensions, and the
Respondent’s claim of uncontrollable delays is refuted by the lack of formal force majeure
notices, the structural completion of Tower 3, and repeated unfulfilled promises. Denying relief
would undermine RERA’s purpose. The Complainant prays for interest under Section 18(1) and
other appropriate directions.
57.

The Complainant respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Authority:
1. Direct the Respondent to pay interest for every month of delay from 31st August 2023
until possession is handed over, as per Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act.
2. Grant compensation for the mental agony, logistical hardship, and financial burden
caused by the delay.
3. Pass any other orders deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.

14 OF 25

---

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:
59.

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. The Authority finds this objection untenable for
the following reasons:
60.

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

ready reference:
33. Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of sale executed between
the parties, the said clause stated that all or any disputes arising out ot
touching upon or in relation to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, including the interpretation and validity of the terms thereof
and the respective rights and obligations of the Parties, shall be settled
amicably by mutual discussion, falling which the same shall be settled
through adjudication officer appointed under the Act.
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.
61.

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.

15 OF 25

---

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.
63.

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 Subsection (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 the
binding dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Ayyaswamy (supra), the
matters/disputes, which the Authorities under the Real Estate Act are empowered to
decide, are non-arbitrable, notwithstanding an Arbitration Agreement between the
parties to such matters, which, to a large extent, are similar to the disputes falling for
resolution under the Consumer Act.
56. Consequently, we unhesitatingly reject the arguments on behalf of the Builder and
hold that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the
Complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer
Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.”*

64.

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
16 OF 25

---

65.

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
66.

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

in handing over of possession of the subject flat.
67.

It is the case of the Complainants that the Agreement of Sale dated 23.11.2021, 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.
68.

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, third-party litigations, or rocky site conditions can be
taken as a valid shield by the Respondent in the present case?
69.

This Authority finds no merit in such contentions. The Agreement of Sale was admittedly

executed on 23.11.2021, 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
17 OF 25

---

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 the grace period of 6 months i.e 28.02.2024.
71.

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
conscious of the consequences of getting the project registered under
RERA. Having sufficient experience in the open market, the Promoter
is expected to have a fair assessment of the time required for completing
the project…".

72.

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.
73.

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
74.

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
18 OF 25

---

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.”

76.

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 the Telangana RERA:
1. 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Circular No.14 dated 13.05.2020),
2. 15.09.2020 to 15.03.2021 (Order No.15 dated 29.09.2020),
3. 15.03.2021 to 14.09.2021 (Order No.16 dated 01.06.2021).

77.

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.
78.

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

19 OF 25

---

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.
80.

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:
81.

It is not in dispute that the Complainants have paid about ₹67,43,650/- out of the total

sale consideration of ₹73,95,500/-, 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.
82.

The Respondent’s contention that 90% work is complete and that the complainants have

paid only 75% consideration is wholly unsustainable. The complainants have already paid
approximately 91% 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 than a year has elapsed beyond the grace
period, yet the project is neither complete nor possession handed over.
83.

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
20 OF 25

---

84.

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..
85.

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.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss caused to
him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is being developed or
has been developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and the claim for
compensation under this subsection shall not be barred by limitation provided
under any law for the time being in force.
(3) If the promoter fails to discharge any other obligations imposed on him under
this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the agreement for sale, he shall be liable to pay such
compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided under this Act.

86.

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
21 OF 25

---

88.

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.
89.

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.
90.

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.
91.

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

22 OF 25

---

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

further default, non-compliance, or failure to deliver possession within the assured statutory
timelines or any fresh grievances brought to notice by allottees shall invite invocation of Section
63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
93.

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.
94.

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.
95.

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 Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, to claim interest on such delayed payments in
accordance with Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017. Nevertheless, such entitlement shall be subject to the Respondent producing cogent and
substantive documents demonstrating both the stage-wise progress of construction and the
corresponding default, and not merely based on unilateral assertions.
96.

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

Section 19(6) and 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:
97.

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

to issue the following directions:

23 OF 25

---

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 section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
99.

The complaint is accordingly allowed in part, in terms of the above directions.
24 OF 25

---

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
101.

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

25 OF 25

---