Order Complaint No.141 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 141/2025/TG RERA
Date: 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. Vrushali Monde
2. Rahul Monde
(R/o. Flat No. 1204, Sri Sairam Towers,
Manjira Pipeline Road, Hafeezpet, Hyderabad - 500049.)
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
(Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram,
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.

It is submitted that the Complainant purchased a flat in the project “Vasavi Lake City”

in 2021, based on the advertisements, personal interactions with the marketing team, and the
1 of 21

---

It is stated that as per the agreed terms, the Complainant made 90% of the payment

towards the flat, believing that the project was on track. The builder, Sri Vijay Kumar Yerram,
had personally assured that the handover would take place by August 2024, and that possession
could even be expected before the committed deadline.
5.

It is contended that despite these assurances, the project faced repeated and unjustified

delays and, as of February 2025, remained incomplete. The Respondent allegedly postponed
the handover dates on multiple occasions, provided vague reasons, and failed to communicate
a clear and firm timeline. Having already paid 90% of the consideration, the Complainant stated
that this delay caused uncertainty and financial distress, significantly impacting plans and
investments.
6.

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

completed, with no major work carried out thereafter. Key aspects such as interior finishing,
common amenities, and supporting infrastructure remained incomplete. Despite multiple
follow-ups, the Respondent allegedly failed to provide any roadmap or completion schedule,
leaving the Complainant and other homebuyers frustrated and anxious.
7.

The Complainant alleged that the continued delay in possession constitutes a violation

of the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, as the Respondent failed to deliver the project
within the stipulated timeline without valid justification. By collecting 90% payment upfront
and failing to fulfil contractual obligations, the Respondent has allegedly breached the statutory
requirements. The Complainant stated that the delay has caused financial strain, mental stress,
and emotional distress, and therefore sought intervention of this Authority for urgent directions,
financial compensation, and strict action against the Respondent.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to complete the construction and hand over possession of the
flat at the earliest. Seeking immediate action to ensure that the remaining work is

2 of 21

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant
from the promised possession date of August 2024 until the actual date of handover, at
the rate prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, 2016.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation for the undue stress, inconvenience, and
financial losses incurred as a result of the prolonged delay.

iv.

Direct the Respondent to provide compensation in lieu of the kitchen platform as
agreed.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent:
9.

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

vide booking dated 08.02.2021, and was allotted an apartment No. W.51009 on the 10th Floor
of Tower 5, admeasuring 1650 sq. ft., along with parking, for a total consideration of Rs.
79,85,500/-. The Agreement of Sale sets out the carpet area, balcony/veranda area, common
area, and undivided share of land. The Complainant has paid Rs. 25,25,000/- towards the sale
consideration, while the balance amount remains payable in accordance with the agreed
payment schedule.

3 of 21

---

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.
16.

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
4 of 21

---

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.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s reply is largely evasive, built on vague

excuses and misleading statements aimed at shifting responsibility for the inordinate delay in
possession. The fundamental fact remains that under the Agreement of Sale dated 13.07.2021,
possession was contractually fixed for 31.08.2023, yet the Respondent has failed to deliver
despite the Complainant’s tower being structurally complete for over 18 months. Reliance on
COVID-19, force majeure, third-party disputes, or internal inefficiencies does not constitute a
valid legal justification under RERA for such prolonged delay.
19.

The Complainant has already paid more than 80% of the total consideration and fully

complied with all obligations under Schedule C. False allegations of payment default,
retrospective extensions, and unverifiable meeting records cannot dilute the statutory
protections guaranteed under Section 18(1) of the Act. The Complainant and his family
continue to endure severe financial strain, logistical hardship, and mental agony, particularly
at this stage of life. In these circumstances, the Complainant seeks nothing beyond what is
legally mandated, i.e., monthly interest for the delayed period under Section 18(1), along with
such further reliefs as this Hon’ble Authority may deem just and proper.
20.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s preliminary objection on

maintainability is not only vague but legally unfounded. Section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016,
confers an explicit statutory right upon any aggrieved allottee to approach this Hon’ble
Authority for redressal. The Agreement of Sale dated 13.07.2021 clearly stipulates the
5 of 21

---

It is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Authority cannot be ousted by any

arbitration or alternative clause contained in a private agreement. Also, the Complainant made
repeated efforts to communicate with the Respondent to seek resolution, however these
attempts for resolution were met with evasive excuses such as hospitalization, unavailability
of leadership, and CRM staff disclaiming authority, resulting in a cycle of blame-shifting and
inaccessibility. Hence, the Respondent’s objection on maintainability is baseless, evasive, and
demonstrates their failure to engage with allottees constructively.
22.

The objection regarding absence of prior legal notice is equally meritless. The Act does

not mandate issuance of any notice before filing a complaint under Section 31. This ground is
irrelevant and appears to have been raised only to delay proceedings.
23.

It is submitted that while approvals and registration are acknowledged, they do not

absolve the Respondent from the legal obligation of timely execution and handover. Having
permissions does not discharge the responsibility of delivering possession within the
committed timeline. It is further submitted that the Respondent has grossly failed to abide by
the obligations accompanying RERA registration. Instead of honouring the timelines declared
at the time of registration, the Respondent has offered vague and contradictory explanations
for delay, failed to transparently update project status, and has not disclosed realistic possession
timelines.
24.

It is submitted that under the RERA framework and standard contractual norms, the

Agreement of Sale dated 13.07.2021, is the only binding document. It is further submitted that
the Complainant has duly paid the money as per demand towards the consideration value in
line with Schedule C of the Agreement, and the balance payment is contractually due only at
the time of handover of possession, which has not yet occurred. Therefore, there is no default
on part of the Complainant, and any suggestion to the contrary is misleading.
25.

The Complainants submits that the Respondent’s reliance on the RERA registration

extension while disregarding the binding commitment under the Agreement of Sale is legally
untenable. The possession date of 31.08.2023, as expressly agreed in the Agreement of Sale,
must prevail for assessing delay, irrespective of any subsequent extensions granted by the
6 of 21

---

It is further submitted that the Respondent has delayed the project by nearly two years,

all the while providing only empty verbal assurances of imminent possession. Now, by
unilaterally citing a delivery date of February 2026, far beyond the contractual deadline under
the Agreement of Sale, the Respondent seeks to render the agreement meaningless. Such
conduct amounts to a serious breach of trust and a clear circumvention of the statutory
framework under RERA, which exists to safeguard the rights of homebuyers.
27. If such actions are permitted, the Agreement of Sale would be reduced to a non-binding
formality, undermining the faith of thousands of allottees and defeating the very object of
regulated real estate practices. The Complainant therefore submits that the Respondent must
be held fully accountable under Sections 18 and 19 of the RERA Act for the inordinate delay
and directed to pay compensation strictly in line with statutory provisions.
28.

The Complainant acknowledges the payment of Rs.25,25,000/-, however it is stated

that the attempt to divert the discussion towards specifications under Schedule D and E is
completely irrelevant to the core subject of the complaint which relates to delay in possession
and not alterations in sanctioned plan. There is no default in payment. Despite receiving over
80% of the price, the Respondent failed to hand over possession within the agreed timeline,
violating Clause 7.1 and attracting consequences under Section 18 of the Act.
29.

It is submitted that the Respondent selectively relies on Clauses 5 and 7.1 of the

Agreement while ignoring the clear obligation to hand over possession by 31.08.2023. Even
after the six-month grace period, possession has not been offered. As of February 2025, the
Complainant remains without possession, well beyond any permissible extension. The plea of
force majeure is untenable since the AOS was executed on 22.02.2021, after the pandemic
impact was well known. The Respondent cannot retroactively invoke COVID-19 to avoid
liability. Moreover, force majeure cannot override Section 18(1) of the Act, which entitles the
allottee to interest for delay. The Respondent has also failed to produce any evidence of formal
invocation of force majeure, timely notice, or mitigation efforts. The delay is therefore
unjustified, and the Respondent is fully liable.

30.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s reliance on Clause 7.2 regarding procedure for

possession is misplaced when the fundamental precondition of obtaining Occupancy
7 of 21

---

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

and defamatory allegations of suppression and ulterior motives. The Agreement of Sale clearly
fixes possession as 31.08.2023, yet despite lapse of nearly two years, possession has not been
delivered. Approaching this Authority is a statutory right of the Complainant. The Complainant
has placed on record the Agreement, proof of payments, meeting minutes, and correspondence,
while the Respondent has repeatedly failed to meet timelines. Their present attempt to defer
possession to February 2026 only reinforces the continued breach.
32.

While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is acknowledged, reliance on it to justify

prolonged delay is untenable. The AOS was executed on 22.02.2021, well after lockdowns
were lifted and construction activity had resumed. The Respondent, with full knowledge of
circumstances, nevertheless committed to hand over possession by 31.08.2023. The real delay
occurred between 2023 and 2025, long after normalcy returned.
33.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s reliance on Supreme Court orders in Suo Motu

W.P. No. 3 of 2020 is irrelevant. Those orders relate only to exclusion of limitation periods
under certain statutes and have no bearing on contractual obligations under RERA. The AOS
was executed after the COVID relaxation period, and the possession date of 31.08.2023 was
agreed with full awareness of circumstances. General judicial extensions cannot override the
specific rights of an allottee under RERA. This defence is diversionary and must be rejected.
34.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s attempt to attribute delay to labour migration is

also misplaced. The Complainant’s unit in Tower 5 of the West Wing was structurally complete
more than 18 months ago, yet no further progress was made. Delays post-completion cannot
be explained by labour shortages. No documentary evidence has been produced to show timely
communication of such impediments.
35.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s vague claim of “various additional factors” and

“cascading effects” is evasive and unsupported by evidence. Despite asserting that 90% work
is complete, no possession has been offered, no demand notes have been issued, and no formal
schedule for handover has been given. Updates, if any, were provided only after repeated
8 of 21

---

It is submitted that the Respondent’s attempt to dismiss the possession date in the

Agreement of Sale as a “clerical mistake” is indefensible. A registered agreement executed by
both parties cannot be retrospectively termed an error. Such a claim reflects misrepresentation
and abdication of responsibility. If the Respondent committed to an unrealistic timeline, that
itself amounts to misrepresentation at the time of booking. Repeated invocation of force
majeure does not cure this breach. The conduct amounts to deliberate default, and the
Respondent must be held liable.
37.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s reference to third-party disputes is also untenable.

It was the promoter’s duty under Section 11(3)(a) to ensure the project was free of
encumbrances. Litigation risks cannot be used to justify delay. No formal disclosure of such
disputes was made to the Complainant at the relevant time. Buyers cannot be penalized for the
promoter’s lapses in legal due diligence. These explanations are post-facto and cannot excuse
breach of the Agreement of Sale.
38.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s claim of informing allottees through

communications or meetings is unsubstantiated. In reality, minutes were shared only after
repeated demands and merely recorded shifting timelines, none of which were honoured. Such
conduct reflects a pattern of deflection, not transparency.
39.

The Complainants submit that they seek interest for the delay in possession, not refund

of the amount paid. This claim is well within the statutory framework of Section 18(1) of the
Act, which mandates interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over. The
Respondent’s dismissal of the claim for compensation shows insensitivity to the real hardship
faced by the Complainant’s family. The delay forced additional commuting, rental
arrangements, and financial strain, apart from causing mental agony and distress.
40.

The Respondent’s assertion that possession will be given in February 2026 and that the

Complainant is in arrears is false. The Complainant never consented to extend possession
beyond 31.08.2023, and any RERA extension does not override the Agreement of Sale.
Payment of more than 80% of the total amount has already been made, with the balance payable

9 of 21

---

The Respondent’s reference to site conditions such as rocky site and blasting

restrictions is an afterthought. Any experienced developer is expected to assess site conditions
before committing timelines.
42.

It is submitted that the blanket denial of liability by the Respondent is untenable. The

Respondent cannot escape responsibility by vague references to uncontrollable circumstances,
particularly when no force majeure notice was ever issued and no evidence of genuine
impediments has been produced. The Complainant’s tower was structurally complete long ago,
yet possession has not been offered. The Respondent is in clear breach of the Agreement of
Sale and the Act.
43.

The sweeping denial of the complaint as false is equally unsustainable. The AOS dated

22.02.2021 fixes the possession date as 31.08.2023, which has not been honoured. The
Complainant has complied with all obligations, whereas the Respondent continues to rely on
vague defences. Relief under Section 18(1) of the Act is not only legally justified but necessary
to uphold accountability. The Authority is therefore respectfully urged to direct payment of
statutory interest for the delay and pass such other orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
E. Points for Consideration:
58.

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: Maintainability of the Complaint
45. The Respondent has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present complaint
on the ground that the Complainant 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. It is further contended that no prior legal
notice was issued, rendering the complaint defective.
10 of 21

---

11 of 21

---

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

53. 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. The objection
regarding non-issuance of a prior legal notice is equally without merit, as no such mandate
exists under the RE(R&D) Act. The Complainant has further demonstrated repeated
attempts to communicate with the Respondent, which were met with evasive responses,
unavailability of leadership, and blame-shifting, resulting in no meaningful resolution.
Accordingly, this Authority has no hesitation in holding that the Complainant is well within
their rights to approach this forum without being first compelled to pursue an amicable

12 of 21

---

---

“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.”
64. 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
14 of 21

---

---

73. Accordingly, this Authority rejects the contention that non-payment of balance
consideration disentitles the Complainant from claiming relief. A promoter in default
cannot compel an allottee to keep paying indefinitely, particularly when no tangible
progress has been demonstrated and statutory timelines have already been breached. It must
be emphasized that Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is an unconditional provision. It does
not make the grant of interest contingent upon the quantum of sale consideration paid, nor
does it prescribe any defence available to a defaulting promoter to resist such liability. Once
delay in handing over possession is established, the allottee if choosing to remain in the
project is entitled to interest for every month of delay, irrespective of whether the allottee
has paid part or whole of the consideration. Thus, the Respondent’s plea that only “partial

16 of 21

---

76.

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

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

77.
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

17 of 21

---

78.

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.
79.

At the same time, it is clarified that if the Complainant has indeed defaulted in adhering

to the payment schedule, the Respondent is not without remedy. Sections 19(6) and 19(7) of
the Act confer upon the promoter a right to claim interest for delayed payments, as per Rule 15
of the Telangana RE(R&D) 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.
80.

Accordingly, while the Complainant is entitled to relief under Section 18 of the

RE(R&D) Act, this entitlement is subject to the reciprocal statutory duty of the Complainant to
discharge any outstanding amounts under the payment plan, if not already paid. Compliance
on both sides is essential to ensure balance of obligations and timely delivery.
81.

In the present case, this Authority finds the Respondent in clear breach of both statutory

and contractual obligations. Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled to interest at the
prescribed rate for the entire period of delay, i.e., from 01.03.2024 until the actual date of
handing over possession. In view of the discrepancy between the amounts stated by the
Complainant and the Respondent, the Respondent is directed to verify the payment receipts
and ascertain the exact quantum paid by the Complainant. Interest shall be calculated and paid
on the amount so established through documentary proof of payments made till date. As regards
claims of compensation, this Authority notes that jurisdiction for adjudicating compensation
lies with the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of RE(R&D) Act with Form ‘N’. The
Complainant is at liberty to pursue such remedy separately.
82.

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
18 of 21

---

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.
84.

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.
85.

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.
86.

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.
87.

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.
88.

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
19 of 21

---

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

to issue the following directions:
a. The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding the maintainability of
the complaint on account of the Dispute Resolution Clause in the Agreement of Sale
stands rejected. The complaint is maintainable before this Authority.
b. The Respondent’s reliance on the Covid-19 pandemic as a ground of force majeure is
held untenable, since the Agreement of Sale was executed after the subsiding of the
pandemic and with full knowledge of the prevailing circumstances.
c. The extension of registration taken by this Respondent cannot dilute the contractual
rights of the Complainant under the Agreement of Sale. The date of possession as
stipulated in the Agreement shall prevail.
d. The Respondent is held liable for failure to hand over possession of the subject flat by
the agreed date i.e., 28.02.2024 (inclusive of grace period).
e. The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.85% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the
amounts paid, with effect from 01.03.2024 until actual handing over of lawful
possession. The Respondent shall pay the arrears accrued up to the date of this Order
within sixty (60) days, and shall thereafter continue to pay the accruing interest on a
monthly basis, on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month, until possession is
delivered.
f. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Complainant is at liberty to pursue
appropriate proceedings before the Learned Adjudicating Officer under “Form N”.
g. The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the project forthwith and hand over
possession to the Complainants within the statutory timelines.
h. The Complainants are directed to pay the balance consideration strictly in accordance
with the agreed payment schedule. In the event of any default in adhering to such
schedule, the Respondent shall be at liberty to claim interest on the delayed amounts,
as provided under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017. However, such claim shall be substantiated by valid documentary evidence
20 of 21

---

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.
91.

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

92.

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
93. 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

21 of 21

---