Order Complaint No.142 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 142/2025/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. Mr. Rathikindi Venkata Siva Kumar
2. Mrs Rathikindi Swathi W/o Rathikindi Venkata Siva Kumar
(R/o H.No. 17-11-408, Road No-5, Nandan Ratan Pride, Beeramguda, Patancheru, Hyderabad,
Telangana – 502319)

…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
(Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram & Kandey Ramesh, Vasavi Corporate, H.No.8-2703/7/1 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:
It was submitted that the Complainants, Sri Rathikindi Venkata Siva Kumar and Smt.
Rathikindi Swathi, had purchased a flat from the Respondent, Vasavi Realtors LLP, in the
project known as “Vasavi Lake City West” (RERA No. PO2500001819). An Agreement of Sale
for Flat No. W-031103, located on the 11th floor of Tower 3, was executed on 6th July 2021.
1 of 19

---

It was stated that the purchase was made based on representations from the

Respondent’s marketing team. Pursuant to the terms of the said Agreement of Sale, the
stipulated date for the handover of possession was on or before August 2023.
4.

It was further submitted that the Complainants had made timely payments for all

demand letters raised by the Respondent. The final payment, concluding ninety percent of the
total sale consideration, was made on 7th November 2023, with the remaining ten percent due
at the time of possession.
5.

It was contended that despite these commitments and timely payments, the project had

faced unjustified delays and, as of February 2025, remained incomplete. It was alleged that the
Respondent had repeatedly postponed the handover date, providing a series of revised timelines
from August 2023 to October 2024, then to January 2025, February 2025, and subsequently to
June 2025.
6.

It was stated that as of January 2025, the project was only an estimated seventy percent

complete. Key aspects such as the installation of lifts, interior finishing, common amenities,
landscaping, and other supporting infrastructure remained unfinished. It was alleged that the
Respondent had failed to provide a clear roadmap or completion schedule.

B. Reliefs Sought
7.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to forthwith complete all pending construction and hand over
possession of the subject flat to the Complain-ant at the earliest, within a fixed and
enforceable timeframe to be determined by this Honourable Authority, failing which to
impose strict penalties upon the Respondent.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant,
calculated from the promised date of possession in August 2023 until the actual date of
handover, at the rate prescribed under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay adequate compensation to the Complainant for the
severe mental anguish, financial strain, and disruption to personal and professional life
suffered as a direct result of the Respondent's negligence, false promises, and the
prolonged delay in the project.

C. Counter filed by the Respondents.
2 of 19

---

It was submitted by the Respondent that the complaint was not maintainable either in

law or on facts and was liable to be dismissed. The Respondent contended that the Complainant
had failed to follow the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for the resolution of
disputes before approaching this Hon’ble Authority. It was further submitted that no prior legal
notice was issued before the filing of the complaint, which rendered the application defective.
9.

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

Respondent obtained rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering a total
land area of 34,704.37 sq. yds. The requisite permissions for land conversion and for the
construction of multi-storied residential apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The project,
consisting of multiple towers and a clubhouse, was duly registered with this Authority vide
Registration No. P02500001821 dated 20.03.2020.
10.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. W. 311103 on

the 11th Floor of Tower 3, admeasuring 1705 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 46 sq. yds. of
land under the Agreement of Sale. The agreement detailed the carpet area, balcony area,
common area, and the undivided share of land. The total sale consideration was Rs.
1,10,24,450/- out of which the Complainant paid Rs. 23,15,135/-.
11.

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

to hand over possession of the apartment on or before 31.08.2024, with a grace period of six
months. The said clause explicitly stated that the period of completion would stand extended
in the event of force majeure conditions, during which the allottee was not entitled to claim any
compensation for the delay.
12.

It was contended that the Complainant had not approached this Hon’ble Authority with

clean hands but with an ulterior motive for unlawful gain, and that there had been a material
suppression of facts. While the existence of the Agreement of Sale was not in dispute, the
Respondent averred that the Complainant made false claims despite being aware of the
contractual terms and circumstances.
13.

The Respondent stated that the project timelines were severely impacted by the

COVID-19 pandemic, which was a force majeure event recognized under law. It was submitted
that following the declaration of a public health emergency in January 2020, a nationwide
lockdown was imposed in India from March 2020. This event led to a mass migration of the
labour force, which was critical to the construction industry in Hyderabad, thereby causing a

3 of 19

---

The Respondent further relied on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu

Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was
excluded for the purposes of computing limitation across all statutes. It was contended that this
legally recognized the extraordinary circumstances and justified the extension of timelines for
project completion.
15.

In addition to the pandemic, the Respondent submitted that the project was delayed by

other unforeseen factors. It was stated that the project site contained rocky terrain which, due
to its location in a residential vicinity, could not be excavated using explosives. The consequent
need for manual rock-breaking compounded the construction delays. Furthermore, the project
was adversely impacted by third-party disputes, including several legal proceedings filed
against the project, such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. No. 2694/2021, and W.P. No.
26301/2024, which hindered its smooth progress. These challenges were communicated to the
customers in periodic meetings.
16.

It was contended that any clerical or typographical errors in the Agreement of Sale,

such as an incorrect possession date mentioned in one instance, could not be exploited to create
liability, especially when the magnitude of the project made such a timeline practically
impossible. The Respondent asserted that the project was over 90% complete and in the final
finishing stages. An extension for the project registration had been granted by this Authority
up to 07.02.2026, and the Respondent gave an undertaking to deliver the apartments within this
extended period.
17.

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

such reliefs were not maintainable in view of the force majeure conditions. It was argued that
the circumstances clearly fell within the definition provided under Section 6 of the Act. The
Respondent maintained that the delay was not due to any deliberate act or default on its part,
and therefore, the Complainant had not established any legal basis for claiming compensation
for mental agony or financial loss.
18.

The Respondent concluded that the complaint was preposterous and without

foundation. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the Respondent be allowed to
complete the project and deliver possession to all allottees as per the extended timeline.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant
4 of 19

---

It was submitted in response to the preliminary objection on maintainability, that the

said objection was vague, unsupported, and legally untenable. The complaint had been filed
under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which explicitly
granted an aggrieved allottee the right to seek redressal. It was stated that the Agreement of
Sale dated 6th July 2021 clearly committed to handing over possession by 31st August 2023,
and as the flat had not been delivered, the complaint was fully maintainable.
20.

The contention that the Complainant had not availed methods as provided in the

agreement was described as legally unfounded and entirely unsustainable. It was submitted that
all relevant evidence, including Minutes of Meetings and Form-M, had already been submitted
in support of the claims, and that all possible means to establish contact with the builder had
been exhausted.
21.

The objection regarding the non-issuance of a legal notice was described as legally

misconceived and procedurally irrelevant, as there was no such requirement under Section 31
of the Act. It was further noted that the Respondent was well aware of the grievance, as the
issue of delay had been repeatedly raised in multiple in-person meetings.
22.

It was stated that the Respondent's development rights, permissions obtained for

construction, and RERA registration were not in dispute.
23.

It was submitted that as per the RERA Act, the Agreement for Sale was the primary

document, which clearly stated the committed possession date as 31st August 2023.
24.

With regard to the extension of the project's registration, it was submitted that as per

the Agreement of Sale dated 6th July 2021, possession was committed by 31st August 2023,
and even with a six-month grace period, the Respondent had exceeded the timeline. It was
stated that while construction progress may have been reported to authorities, actual possession
remained undelivered. The reference to the "Schedule of amenities" was described as irrelevant
to the core issue.
25.

The Complainant fully acknowledged the payment of ₹23,15,135/-. However, it was

submitted that the Respondent's attempt to divert the discussion toward specifications was
unrelated to the core issue of delay. It was clarified that there was no default in payment by the
Complainant, as the balance consideration was expressly linked to possession milestones. It
was pointed out that despite receiving over 90% of the total sale consideration, the builder had
failed to hand over possession.

5 of 19

---

The Respondent's reliance on Clauses 5 and 7 of the Agreement was described as

misconceived. It was argued that while Clause 7.1 itself stated that timely delivery was the
essence of the Agreement, the Respondent's claim that a force majeure clause allowed for an
automatic extension did not override the statutory right to compensation. It was submitted that
the agreement was executed on 6th July 2021, when the promoter was aware of the COVID19 impact.
27.

The Respondent's quoting of Clause 7.2 was stated to be misleading and premature, as

the condition precedent of obtaining an Occupancy Certificate (OC) had not been met. It was
submitted that Clause 9, which dealt with promoter defaults, was squarely applicable and
reinforced the Complainant's entitlement to relief.
28.

The Respondent's allegation that the complaint had been filed with an ulterior motive

was denied in toto. It was submitted that the Complainant had approached the Hon'ble
Authority with clean hands, placing all material facts and documents on record, including
payment receipts, demand letters, and multiple possession date letters. The vague and
unsubstantiated allegation of 'material suppression' was described as an attempt to deflect
attention from their own breach.
29.

It was submitted that while the COVID-19 pandemic was a global emergency, the

Agreement of Sale was executed on 6th July 2021, when nationwide lockdowns had been lifted
and construction had resumed. Therefore, COVID-19 could not be cited as an unforeseeable
force majeure event.
30.

The Respondent's reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's extension of limitation

periods was described as misconceived and irrelevant to the present matter. It was argued that
those orders had no bearing on the contractual obligation to complete a project on time,
especially when the Respondent had previously attributed the delay to funding constraints and
legal issues.
31.

It was acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic created challenges, but it was

argued that the labor disruptions of early 2020 did not justify a delay for a contract entered into
in mid-2021, well after the peak of the crisis.
32.

The Respondents' vague reference to 'various additional factors' was described as

wholly unspecific and unsupported by evidence. It was submitted that no formal written notices
or revised possession timelines had been provided to justify the delay.

6 of 19

---

The Complainant strongly denied the Respondent's assertion that the possession date of

31st August 2023 was a "clerical or typo mistake." It was submitted that this was an
afterthought and legally untenable, especially as the Respondent had executed multiple
agreements with the same timeline during that period.
34.

The claim that the complaint was baseless or malicious was categorically denied. It was

argued that while the Respondent may have secured an extension of RERA registration, this
did not alter or override their contractual commitment to the Complainant.
35.

It was acknowledged that a general communication regarding third-party disputes was

received in January 2025, but it was submitted that this information was shared well after the
committed possession date and the grace period had already expired.
36.

It was acknowledged that the Respondent had communicated updates during meetings.

However, it was argued that informal updates or phased assurances could not override the
express contractual commitment made in the Agreement of Sale. The relief sought was
described as a reasonable and lawful statutory right.
37.

It was respectfully submitted that the entitlement to interest for delay was not

discretionary, but a statutory right triggered when the promoter failed to deliver possession
within the stipulated timeframe.
38.

The primary relief sought was interest for delay, which was a statutory right and did

not require separate proof of mental agony. It was argued that if compensation was sought, it
was based on the real disruption in planning, finances, and stability for the Complainant.
39.

It was submitted that 90% of the flat cost had been paid strictly in accordance with the

payment schedule, and the remaining 10% was due only at the time of registration and
possession. The claim that the Complainant was "in arrears" was described as factually
incorrect and legally unsustainable.
40.

The Complainant denied having ever waived the right to claim delay-related relief. The

claim of "rocky terrain" was described as a new justification introduced only in the present
counter, reflecting a lack of due diligence.
41.

The statement that the Complain-ant was not entitled to relief was described as a general

denial, unsupported by specific facts. It was submitted that the Respondent had failed to
demonstrate that any force majeure conditions occurred after the execution of the Agreement
of Sale.
7 of 19

---

The Complainant took strong objection to the characterization of the complaint as

"preposterous" or "false." It was submitted that the complaint had been filed in good faith based
on the documented delay. The Respondent's claimed reputation or efforts could not override
contractual and legal obligations. The Complainant respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble
Authority direct the Respondent to compensate for the delay and ensure timely possession.
E. Points for Consideration:
43.
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:
44.

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:
45

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.
46.

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
8 of 19

---

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.
48.

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

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

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
9 of 19

---

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
51.

The Complainants have sought relief on the ground that there has been an inordinate

delay in handing over possession of the subject flat, despite timely payments of 90% of the
total sale consideration.
52.

It is the case of the Complainants that the Agreement of Sale dated 06.07.2021 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 70% as per the
10 of 19

---

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

on 06.07.2021, 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.
55.

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 Complainants, 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 with the grace period of 6 months i.e 28.02.2024.
56.

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
11 of 19

---

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

advantageous position with respect to project information and market realities, is under a
statutory duty to provide realistic timelines. The framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 reinforces this obligation by mandating timely completion and
possession within the period stipulated in the Agreement of Sale.
58.

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
59.

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

Authority, the project timeline now stands extended up to February 2026, and therefore
possession shall be delivered by then. The Complainants, however, have questioned the validity
and effect of such extensions.
60.

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.”
61.

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:
12 of 19

---

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.
63.

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:

64.

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”
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.
65.

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:
66.

It is observed that there exists a discrepancy regarding the payments made by the

Complainants. The Complainants contend that they have paid 90% of the total consideration
of ₹1,10,24,450/-, with the last payment made on 07.11.2023. The Respondent, however,
asserts that only ₹23,15,135/- has been paid. The Complainants have placed on record a
13 of 19

---

The contention of the Respondent that 90% of the project work stands completed is

untenable in view of the Complainants’ submissions, that only 70% of the project is complete,
with essential components such as lifts, interior finishing, common amenities, and landscaping
yet to be completed. Despite having received substantial amounts from the Complainants, the
Respondent has failed to discharge its contractual obligations. It is evident that the Respondent
made assurances of timely completion while being fully aware of its inability to meet the
stipulated timelines. More time year has lapsed beyond the contractual deadline, yet the project
remains incomplete and possession has not been handed over.
68.

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]:

69.

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.
Accordingly, this Authority rejects the contention of the Respondent that non-payment

of the balance consideration disentitles the Complainants from claiming relief. A promoter in
default cannot compel an allottee to continue making payments indefinitely, particularly when
no commensurate construction progress has been demonstrated and agreed timelines have
already been breached. It is pertinent to note that the present Agreement linked the payment
schedule to the progress of construction. Thus, while an allottee is indeed bound to adhere to
the agreed payment schedule, such obligation arises only when the promoter simultaneously
14 of 19

---

It must further be emphasized that Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is an unconditional

provision. The right to interest for delayed possession is neither contingent upon the extent of
sale consideration paid nor subject to any defence that may be raised by a defaulting promoter.
Once delay in handing over possession is established due to the fault of the promoter, an allottee
who wishes to continue in the project is entitled to interest for every month of delay, provided
that the allottee has adhered to the agreed payment schedule which, in this case, was directly
linked to construction progress. When no progress has been demonstrated and the promoter has
failed to adhere to the assured construction timelines, the allottee cannot be expected to
continue making payments indefinitely. In this backdrop, the Respondent’s plea that only
“partial sale consideration” has been paid, and hence interest is not payable, is vague,
misconceived, and contrary to the express mandate of the statute
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.
15 of 19

---

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."
72.
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."
73.

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.
74.

At the same time, 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
16 of 19

---

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

and contractual obligations. The Complainant is therefore 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. 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.
76.

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.
77.

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.
78.

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.
79.

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.
80.

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.
17 of 19

---

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

the Complainants within the stipulated period. It is further clarified that if the Complainants
have defaulted in making payments as per the agreed schedule, the Respondent shall be entitled
under Section 19(6) of the Act to claim interest on such delayed payments, provided that it
substantiates such claim with credible documentary evidence of both construction progress and
corresponding default.
82.

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.
83.

The Complainants are, in turn, directed to discharge any balance amounts due under the

agreed payment schedule, if not already paid. Mutual compliance is essential to ensure timely
completion and delivery of the project.
G. Directions of the Authority:
84.

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
18 of 19

---

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

already pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns
the Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by
allottees shall invite section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
86

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

87. 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
88. As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

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

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

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

19 of 19

---