Order Complaint No.140 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 140/2025/TG RERA
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

1. Manne Shyam
2. Kamani Sri Lakshmi
(R/o Flat No. 201, Navya Kuteer 1, JV Hills,
Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084)
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
(Rep by its Designated Partner, Yerram Vijay Kumar,
Vasavi Corporate,
H.No.8-2-703/7/1 and 8-2-703/7/1/A,
4th Floor, Vasavi Corporate Building, Amrutha Valley Apartments,
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 states that he purchased a flat in Vasavi Lake City in June 2024 from

the landlord’s share, relying upon the advertisements of the project, personal interactions with
1 of 17

---

The Complainant has stated that despite such assurances, the project has been subject

to repeated and unjustified delays and, as of February 2025, remains incomplete. The
Respondent has continuously postponed the handover date, citing vague reasons and failing to
provide a clear timeline. Each time the Complainant enquired about possession, new dates were
given along with false assurances, but without any real progress on the ground. Having already
paid the full consideration amount, the Complainant has been left in a position of uncertainty
and financial distress, as the delay has severely disrupted his plans and investments.
5.

It is further submitted that as of January 2025, the project was only about 60 to 70

percent complete, and since then no major progress has taken place. Essential works such as
interior finishing, provision of common amenities, and supporting infrastructure remain
pending. Despite multiple follow-ups, the Respondent has failed to provide a clear roadmap or
firm completion schedule, leaving the Complainant and other buyers in a state of frustration
and anxiety. The absence of visible progress and lack of proper communication have raised
genuine doubts about the Respondent’s commitment to completing the project.
6.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s conduct amounts to a serious violation

of RERA provisions, inasmuch as the Respondent has failed to deliver possession within the
stipulated period and has collected 100% of the payment upfront without fulfilling the
contractual obligations. The delay has imposed significant financial burden on the Complainant
and has caused severe mental stress and emotional hardship. It is therefore submitted that in
view of the prolonged delay, lack of accountability, and the failure of the Respondent to provide
a firm completion date, the Complainant is constrained to file this complaint before this
Hon’ble Authority seeking urgent intervention, financial compensation, and strict action
against the builder so that justice may be served.

2 of 17

---

The Complainant, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to:
a) Direct the Respondent (Builder) to complete the construction and hand over possession
of the subject flat at the earliest, by fixing a definite and enforceable timeline, and in
case of failure, to impose strict penalties on the builder.
b) Award interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant, in terms of Section 18 of
the RE(R&D) Act, from the promised possession date of August 2023 until the actual
date of handover.
c) Grant compensation for mental harassment, inconvenience, and financial loss suffered
due to the prolonged delay, false assurances, and lack of transparency on the part of the
builder.
d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent:
8.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complaint is not maintainable either in law

or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the complainant has not followed
the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for resolution of disputes before
approaching this Hon’ble Authority. Further, no prior legal notice was issued before filing this
complaint, which itself renders the application defective and not maintainable.
9.

It is submitted that the project “Lake City-West” was developed lawfully after obtaining

rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering 43,298.17 sq. yds. While
requisite land conversion permissions and building permissions for construction of multistoried apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The project consists of seven towers (cellars
+ ground + 14 upper floors) and a clubhouse (stilt + five upper floors). The project was duly
registered with this Authority vide Registration No. P02500001819 dated 20.03.2020.
10.

It is further submitted that the Complainant was allotted an apartment in the project and

was allotted an apartment No. W.51410 on the 14th Floor of Tower 5, admeasuring 1650 sq.
ft., along with parking with an undivided share of land admeasuring 42.60 Sq.Yds. for a total
consideration of Rs. 82,50,000/-, agreed under the sale deed. The agreement provides for

3 of 17

---

It is submitted that as per Clause 7 of the Agreement, the Respondent was obligated to

hand over possession of the flat and common areas by 31.08.2023, subject to extension in the
event of force majeure. The Agreement itself clearly records that timely delivery is the essence
of the contract but also recognises that the period of completion shall stand extended to the
extent of delay caused by force majeure conditions, during which period the allottee is not
entitled to claim compensation.
12.

It is submitted that the complainants have not come before this Hon’ble Authority with

clean facts but with an ulterior motive to make unlawful gain and that there has been material
suppression of facts of the case with regard to the claim and the relief sought therein.
13.

It is further stated that COVID-19 is a force majeure event duly recognized under law,

and hence the timelines stood extended. The Respondent contended that the COVID-19
pandemic, subsequent lockdowns, and migration of labourers had severely impacted
construction work. The Respondent further relies on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
was excluded for the purposes of computation of limitation across various statutes. It is
contended that the extension of time for completion of the project was not only factually
justified but also recognised in law.
14.

In addition to COVID-19, the Respondent submits that unforeseen site conditions such

as rocky terrain requiring manual excavation further delayed the project. Owing to restrictions
on blasting due to the residential nature of the surrounding locality, excavation could only be
done manually, which compounded the delay. These challenges were communicated to all
allottees through regular updates and meetings.
15.

The Respondent also submits that certain third-party disputes adversely impacted the

project timelines. These include cases such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. Nos.
2694/2021, 13898/2022, 33433/2023, W.A. No. 584/2023, SLP Nos. 9694–9695/2023, and
W.P. No. 26301/2024, some of which are still pending. While most have been resolved, their
pendency at various points of time hindered the smooth progress of the project.

4 of 17

---

It is contended that the project has been executed strictly in accordance with approved

plans and specifications, and any clerical or typographical errors in the Agreement of Sale
cannot be construed to create liability. It is the case of the Respondent that more than 90% of
the project construction is completed and the project is presently in its final finishing stage. An
extension of registration has already been granted by this Authority till 07.02.2026, within
which period the Respondent undertakes to deliver possession of the apartments to all allottees.
Communications have also been issued to purchasers for payment of balance amounts, as
completion is nearing.
17.

With regard to the claims for interest and compensation, the Respondent submits that

in view of the force majeure conditions, no such relief is available to the Complainant under
law. Section 6 of the Act specifically contemplates force majeure events such as natural
calamities and other circumstances beyond the control of the promoter. The Respondent
submits that the COVID-19 pandemic, together with the extraordinary circumstances outlined
above, clearly falls within the scope of force majeure.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
18.

It is submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding

maintainability of the complaint is baseless, vague, and legally untenable. The present
complaint has been filed under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, seeking relief for the unreasonable
delay in delivery of possession of the flat in the registered project bearing RERA No.
P02500001819. As per the Agreement of Sale dated 14.03.2021, the committed possession date
was 31.08.2023. However, even as on the date of filing this complaint i.e., 22.02.2025,
possession has not been handed over and the project remains incomplete at less than 85%. The
Hon’ble Telangana RERA has clear jurisdiction to entertain complaints of this nature, and the
application is legally maintainable in fact and in law. The Respondent’s objection is therefore
baseless and liable to be dismissed.
19.

It is further submitted that the Respondent’s claim that the application is not

maintainable for want of exhausting internal dispute resolution mechanisms is untenable. The
Complainant has already provided all evidence, including the minutes of meetings and Form
M, along with proof of repeated efforts to contact and follow up with the Respondent. Despite
such attempts, the Respondent failed to resolve the issue, leaving no alternative but to approach
this Hon’ble Authority. Similarly, the contention that no legal notice was issued prior to filing
5 of 17

---

The Complainant submits that all facts, timelines, and obligations must be assessed

based on the Agreement of Sale, not merely the booking date. The Respondent’s obligations
and delivery schedule arise from this legally binding agreement. RERA must consider the date
of agreement and not the date of booking. The Respondent has never proactively
communicated about the delay or progress. The project schedule was shared only after multiple
follow-ups and was never adhered to.
21.

At the outset, the Complainant categorically denies and strongly objects to the vague,

baseless, and defamatory allegations of the Respondent. These claims are wholly
unsubstantiated and appear to be a deliberate attempt to malign the Complainant’s genuine
grievance while diverting attention from the Respondent’s failure to deliver possession. The
Agreement of Sale clearly specifies 31st August 2023 as the possession date, which the
Respondent has never disputed. Despite nearly two years having elapsed, possession has not
been handed over. The Complainant firmly refutes the allegation that this complaint has been
filed with ulterior motives. Approaching this Hon’ble Authority is a statutory right under
RERA. All material facts, including the AOS, proof of payment, correspondence, and evidence
of delays, have been placed on record. In contrast, the Respondent has failed to honor multiple
promised possession timelines and continues to defer delivery.
22.

The Respondent’s reliance on COVID-19 as force majeure is misplaced. The

Complainant’s agreement was executed after COVID-19 and hence this does not apply.
Furthermore, the delay in construction occurred from late 2023 onwards, a time when COVID
restrictions were no longer in effect. This is evident from the fact that no demand letter was
issued after October 2023 for more than a year, clearly confirming that construction progress
was stalled for reasons unrelated to COVID. The same reasoning applies to subsequent
justifications by the Respondent regarding labour shortages and lockdowns.
23.

The Complainant submits that the delay has been cumulative. After each discussion,

the possession date was revised and updated three to four times beyond the original agreed date
of August 2023. The Agreement of Sale is a critical legal document, and the builder cannot
dismiss its commitment as a clerical error. If one allottee had such a date, it could be considered
6 of 17

---

With respect to third-party disputes, the Complainant states that the Respondent never

proactively disclosed these matters. They were revealed only upon insistence by the allottees.
It is the builder’s legal obligation to resolve such issues and deliver the project as per the
committed schedule in the AOS. Likewise, the claim of proactive communication by the
Respondent is denied. No communication acknowledging delay was ever shared and signed by
the Complainant. If such documents exist, the Respondent may be directed to produce them
before this Authority.
25.

On the claim of interest, the Complainant submits that all evidence of missed possession

dates has been provided. Under Section 18 of the RERA Act, the Complainant is entitled to
interest for the delay period. This delay exceeds two years beyond the agreed possession date,
and the Complainant has already paid 90% of the total amount, including around Rs. 1 crore
since March 2021. The claim of compensation is also valid. The Complainant will submit Form
N separately as directed by this Authority, in addition to Form M already filed. The mental
agony and harassment suffered have been detailed in the original complaint.

26.

The Complainant strongly denies the Respondent’s claim of entitlement to an extension

until February 2026. The Respondent is legally obligated to pay interest and compensation
under RERA rules. The Complainant is ready to clear any outstanding dues upon completion
of the entire project, including amenities, but the builder cannot unlawfully demand 100%
payment prior to completion. The Respondent’s reliance on Covid or site conditions such as
rocky terrain is irrelevant and cannot override the express contractual commitment. The burden
of timely completion lies squarely on the promoter.
27.

It is reiterated that whenever demand letters were raised, the Complainant complied and

disbursed payments before the due date. The entire burden of delay lies with the Respondent,
who has repeatedly failed to honor commitments. The suggestion that this complaint is false or
frivolous is firmly denied. The Complainant requests the Hon’ble Authority to examine the
extensive documentary evidence placed on record.

7 of 17

---

In view of the above, the Complainant respectfully prays that this rejoinder be taken on

record, the objections raised by the Respondent be dismissed, and the reliefs sought in the
original complaint, including interest and compensation, be granted. The Complainant further
prays for such other orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit and proper.
E. Points for Consideration:
29.

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:
30.

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:
31.

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.
32.

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)
8 of 17

---

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.
34.

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.”*

35.

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:

9 of 17

---

36.

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
37.

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

in handing over possession of the subject flat, despite full payment of the total sale
consideration, causing significant financial and emotional distress.
38.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 14.03.2021 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 29.02.2024. The Respondent has failed to hand over possession
even as of February 2025. Further, although the project was registered with TG RERA up to
February 2025 and later extended until 07.02.2026, the project remains incomplete, with
construction progress stalled at approximately 60-70% as per the Complainant’s submission,
with key aspects such as interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting infrastructure
remaining unfinished. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has issued multiple
revised handover schedules without providing valid justification or a clear roadmap for
completion.
39.

The Complainant further submits that despite personal assurances from the

Respondent’s representative, Mr. Yerram Vijay Kumar, that possession would be delivered by
10 of 17

---

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

on 14.03.2021, well after the onset and initial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The
Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing circumstances, nevertheless executed the
Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by August 2023. Having
consciously undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective
justification, rely on Covid-19 as a defense to escape its contractual and statutory obligations.
Such conduct clearly amounts to holding out false assurances with mala fide intent.
41.

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 fully 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.
42.

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…".
43.

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

11 of 17

---

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
45.

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

Authority, the project timeline now stands extended up to 07.02.2026, and therefore possession
shall be delivered by then. The Complainant, however, has questioned the validity and effect
of such extensions.
46.

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.”

47.

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).
48.
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

12 of 17

---

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”

50.

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.
51.

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:
52.

It is noted that the Complainant has paid the full consideration of ₹82,50,000/- as per

the sale deed, while the Respondent does not dispute this payment. The Agreement clearly
stipulated possession by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of 6 months to 29.02.2024.
Admittedly, possession has not been delivered.
53.

The Respondent’s contention that 90% of the project work is complete is unsustainable

in light of the Complainant’s submission, supported by evidence, that the project is only 6070% complete, with critical components such as interior finishing, common amenities, and
supporting infrastructure remaining unfinished. Despite receiving the full consideration, 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 has elapsed beyond the stipulated date,
yet the project is neither complete nor possession handed over.
13 of 17

---

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.

55.

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..
56. 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.

57.

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
14 of 17

---

58.
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."

59.

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.
60.

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.
61.

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.
15 of 17

---

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.
63.

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.
64.

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.
65.

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

the Complainant within the stipulated period. Given that the Complainant has paid the full
consideration, there is no question of outstanding payments affecting the Respondent’s
obligations.
G. Directions of the Authority:
66.

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., 29.02.2024 (inclusive of grace period).
e. The Complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 10.80% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the full
amount paid (₹82,50,000/-), with effect from 01.03.2024 until actual handing over of
16 of 17

---

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
68.

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

penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
69.

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

17 of 17

---