Order Complaint No.143 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 143/2025/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

Naga Veera Bhadra Rao Vakacherla & Anisha Srivalli Kandula
(Flat No. I-901, Aditya Imperial Heights,
Near Hafeezpet Flyover, 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 file 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 was submitted that the Complainant booked a 3 BHK apartment, bearing no. 061309

in Tower 6 of the project “Vasavi Lake City,” on 10-Feb-2021, which was followed by the
1 of 20

---

The Complainant contended that the Promoter failed to hand over the possession of the

apartment by the agreed-upon date and that subsequent commitments for delivery have also
lapsed. It was further submitted that despite the delay on the part of the Promoter, the
Complainant has made all payments promptly and without default. The Complainant alleged
that the delays are deliberate and unjustified, pointing to a lack of delivery of even a single unit
as evidence of poor management.
5.

It was further alleged that the monthly progress reports shared by the Promoter were

inconsistent, contained incomplete information, and were provided without any target
completion dates. The Complainant stated that critical updates on utilities, services, and
external development were not disclosed until recently, and when questioned, the Promoter
allegedly manipulated the dates, which have also since passed. It is the Complainant's
contention that the reports were shared for namesake and that the data provided is erroneous
and unreliable.
6.

The Complainant submitted that there are several un-communicated design and

structural issues. It was stated that the clear height from floor to roof in Tower 6 is only 9'3",
whereas it is 10' in most other towers. Furthermore, a fire line has been added within the
apartment, which compromises aesthetics and is not uniform across the project. The
Complainant also raised concerns regarding reduced dimensions and built-up area, which
allegedly make certain spaces functionally deficient.
7.

It was contended that numerous issues raised by homebuyers in meetings held since

September 2024 remain unresolved. These pending issues include, inter alia: repeated
deferment of completion dates; compensation for delays equivalent to rental value;
compensation for reduced undivided land share and built-up area; and the unilateral omission
of the kitchen counter. The Complainant also stated that several quality and workmanship
issues were raised, including the absence of M/s Tata Projects as the Quality Assurance team,
which was promised at the time of booking.
8.

The Complainant alleged that due to the constant follow-ups regarding the project's

progress, the Promoter has started imposing restrictions on site visits for buyers. It was
submitted that given the meagre resources deployed on-site, there is a significant worry that
the Promoter will further compromise on material specifications and quality standards.
2 of 20

---

Finally, the Complainant stated that the apartment was booked for the purpose of self-

living and not for investment, and the aforementioned issues have become intolerable. This, it
was submitted, leaves the Complainant with no alternative but to seek the cancellation of the
booking.
B. Reliefs Sought
10.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

i.

Direct the builder to deliver the apartment as per the latest commitment date failing
which initiate cancellation of the apartment and refund of all the amount paid till date
including the cost per sq. ft as per the current rates being sold by promoter.

ii.

Loss of Interest amount against the money paid till date.

iii.

Compensation for the rent and other costs incurred at the current location for the delay
period.

iv.

Loss of opportunity cost as the current rates are higher to procure new apartment in
ready-to-move condition.

v.

Compensation for the discrepancies in undivided land share, built-up area, kitchen
counter.

vi.

Restrict the Promoter from raising further demand payment notices owing to the Poor
Progress of Works.

vii.

Compensation against the huge compromises due to the design issues highlighted
above since those limitations were never conveyed and cannot be corrected now.

viii.

Compensation for the psychological agony, emotional distress, personal and
professional disruption, inconvenience due to Promoter's incompetency.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent.
11.

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.
12.

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.
3 of 20

---

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. W. 61309 on

the 13th Floor of Tower 6, admeasuring 1845 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 49 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.
1,16,09,850/- out of which the Complainant paid 24,38,069/-.
14.

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 31.08.2023, 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.
15.

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.
16.

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
significant and unavoidable delay in the project work. All allottees were kept informed of these
developments.
17.

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.
18.

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
4 of 20

---

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.
20.

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.
21.

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.
22.

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

application was certainly maintainable and the Respondent's views lacked merit. The complaint
had been filed under the RERA Act 2016 seeking redressal for the inordinate delay. It was
stated that the Agreement of Sale dated 30th July 2021 clearly stipulated the committed
possession date as 31st August 2023, and as the flat remained undelivered, the complaint was
well within legal bounds.
23.

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

agreement was described as wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit. It was submitted
that the Respondent's reliance on internal dispute resolution mechanisms was irrelevant and
legally unsustainable, as the Complainant, being an aggrieved allottee, had an absolute
statutory right under Section 31 of the Act to approach the Hon'ble Authority. It was stated that

5 of 20

---

The objection regarding the non-issuance of a legal notice was submitted as being

without merit, as there was no such legal mandate under RERA to issue a prior notice.
25.

It was noted that the Respondent's statement regarding development rights appeared to

be listed only for information. Regarding the project's land area, it was noted that it had reduced
with respect to the area mentioned in the Agreement, and it was understood that the Respondent
would adjust the cost accordingly at the time of Registration. The point regarding RERA
registration was noted for information.
26.

With respect to the allotment details, it was understood that the Respondent was

confirming the delivery as per the stated parameters, which would be verified at the time of
taking possession, and any deviations would be appropriately compensated. It was pointed out
that the Respondent had failed to mention the Agreement of Sale dated 30th July 2021, which
was the binding document that governed the crucial possession commitment of 31st August
2023.
27.

It was submitted that the Respondent presumed the project could be extended endlessly

by merely updating the Authority, ignoring the fact that deliberate delays were penalizable. A
serious view was requested of these explanations, which were intended to exploit buyers. It
was noted that hardly 65% of the work was complete as of that date.
28.

Regarding alterations to the sanction plan, it was noted that any alterations done by the

Respondent could only be ascertained after the Complainant was provided access to the
apartment, which had not happened.
29.

It was argued that the Respondent had deliberately ignored the fact that the timelines

had lapsed much beyond those stipulated in the Agreement. It was submitted that the
Agreement was entered into on 30th July 2021, after both COVID extensions had been issued,
which meant the date in the Agreement had already factored in the extensions. It was contended
that the current delays were not due to Force Majeure but due to a lack of effort by the
Developer.
30.

The Respondent's point regarding the procedure for taking possession was described as

erroneously drafted and meaningless. It was submitted that the Respondent had not obtained
an Occupancy Certificate and had no clue about the date for obtaining one. It was also brought
to the Hon'ble Authority's attention that the Promoter had constantly been attempting to arm6 of 20

---

The baseless, vague, and defamatory allegations made by the Respondent were

categorically denied and strongly objected to. The Respondent's assertions about unlawful
gains were described as ridiculous while the Complainant had been accruing huge financial
losses. It was submitted that the Complainant had provided a full and transparent disclosure of
all material facts, whereas the Respondent had failed to honour multiple promised possession
timelines.
32.

The Respondent's repeated references to the COVID-19 pandemic were described as

irrelevant, as the agreement was signed past the impacted timelines. The references to Supreme
Court orders were stated to be invalid and unsuitable for the current context. It was urged that
the Hon'ble Authority not permit the Respondent to misuse a national crisis as a long-term
excuse.
33.

It was submitted that the Respondent continued to omit references to commitments

made during the last two years which were not met even by 1%.
34.

The Respondent's claim of "clerical & typo mistakes" in the agreement was described

as a clear indication of the highest level of irresponsibility and a complete violation of the
Agreement. It was argued that the same date had been mentioned for many Complainants, and
therefore, it was certainly not clerical in nature. It was suggested that it be investigated if such
a timeline was indicated with an illicit intention of securing bookings.
35.

The Respondent's allegations were described as bizarre, as it was the Respondent who

was harassing the Complainant. It was argued that regulatory extensions did not entitle the
Respondent to extend forever nor to be relieved from all contractual obligations of penalty.
36.

The Respondent's statement about third-party disputes was stated to be in contradiction

to their own statement in point 4, exposing lapses in management. It was argued that numerous
litigations surfacing reflected a serious lapse in legal due diligence and could not be a valid
excuse to punish allottees.
37.

It was noted as odd that the Respondent termed the same communications as baseless

when attached to the application. The presumption that mere false updates relieved the
promoter of the obligation of delay penalties was described as objectionable. It was stated that
the Respondent had provided discourteous responses during meetings and had expressed
complete insensitivity to the losses accrued by the Complainants.
7 of 20

---

It was submitted that the existing delays could not be related to COVID and that the

Respondent's statement was completely irrational. As per Clause 9.2.ii of the agreement, as the
Respondent had defaulted, the Agreement clearly indicated that interest for the delayed period
should be paid, which had not been done.
39.

The Respondent's statement regarding compensation was stated to reflect complete

insensitivity to the real and severe consequences faced by the Complainant, which had been
clearly laid out in Form M.
40.

The claim of any arrears due was denied straight away, as payment proofs had been

enclosed with the Application. It was stated that 80% of the payment had been made as of July
2024, and no further requests were raised as works progressed meagrely thereafter. It was
pointed out that the physical progress of the project was hardly 65%.
41.

The Complainant reiterated that the agreement was made after considering all impacts

of COVID. The new claim about rocky terrain and blasting constraints was described as an
afterthought reflecting a lack of due diligence. It was noted as ironic that the Developer, while
admitting to lapses, was seeking to be let go without any impact.
42.

The Respondent's sweeping statement that "causes were beyond control" was stated to

only display a lack of accountability.
43.

It was stated as ironical that the Respondent was requesting to be spared while

displaying an extremely unprofessional attitude. It was pointed out that the Respondent had
been lying about having no complaints in any forum while on the contrary was seeking relief
for delays due to several litigations. It was questioned why, even if the entire project could not
be delivered, not even a single tower or unit remained undelivered. The Complainant
respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Authority ensure justice by granting the relief(s) sought in
the Application.
E. Points for Consideration:
44.

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?

8 of 20

---

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.
46.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

47.

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.
48.

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.
49

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

of any matter which this Authority, the Adjudicating Officer, or the Appellate Tribunal is
empowered to determine. Likewise, Section 88 clarifies that the provisions of the RE(R&D)
Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. Thus, the intention of the legislature
is that remedies under this beneficial legislation must remain open to allottees, irrespective of
any private clause for amicable settlement.
50.

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.

9 of 20

---

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.”*
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
10 of 20

---

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
54.

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

in handing over of possession of the subject flat.
55.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 30-Jul-2021, executed

between the parties, clearly stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be handed over
by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of six months, ending on 28.02.2024. The Respondent has
failed to hand over possession even as on date. Further, although the project was registered
with TG RERA up to February 2025 and later extended until February 2026, the project remains
incomplete.
56.

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

completion, while allottees continue to suffer. The Respondent, conversely, attributes the delay
to the Covid-19 pandemic, claiming force majeure, citing the nationwide lockdown beginning
March 2020, the impact on migrant labour, and consequential delays.
(i) Whether the Covid-19 pandemic can be taken as a valid shield by the Respondent in the
present case?
57.

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

admittedly executed on 30-Jul-2021, much after the onset and near subsiding of the Covid-19
pandemic. The Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing global circumstances,
11 of 20

---

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

into binding contractual commitments with allottees, he does so with full knowledge of the
risks, constraints, and challenges of the market. At the time of entering into the Agreement of
Sale with the present Complainant, the Respondent was already aware of the Covid-related
disruptions, as well as the Government notifications granting moratoriums for project
completion timelines. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent chose to provide a specific
assurance of delivery by August 2023.
59.

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…".

60.

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.
61.

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
12 of 20

---

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.
63.

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.”

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
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 moratoriums issued by 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).
65.

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.
66.

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:

13 of 20

---

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.
68.

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:
69.

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

Complainants. The Complainants contend that they have paid 80% of the total consideration.
The Respondent, however, asserts that only ₹24,38,069/- has been paid. The Complainants
have placed on record a payment receipt reflecting a sum of ₹73,14,208/- towards the subject
unit. In the absence of any contradictory documentary evidence produced by the Respondent,
and upon perusal of the material placed on record, including payment receipts and demand
letters submitted by the Complainants, this Authority is persuaded to proceed on the basis that
substantial payments have indeed been made. Accordingly, the averment of the Complainants
with respect to payment of a substantial portion of the consideration is accepted for the purpose
of adjudication of relief, subject to verification of actual amounts at the stage of computation.
The Agreement of Sale clearly stipulated that possession was to be delivered by 31.08.2023,
with a grace period extending until 29.02.2024. Admittedly, possession has not been delivered
within the said timeline.
70.

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

paid only certain consideration amount. The complainant has already paid approximately 70–
80% of the agreed consideration. Despite receiving such substantial sums, the Respondent has
failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is manifest that the Respondent gave false
14 of 20

---

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.

72.

In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Agreement of Sale linked the payment

schedule to the progress of construction. While the allottees are indeed bound to adhere to the
agreed payment plan, such obligation arises only when the promoter simultaneously fulfils its
reciprocal obligation of executing construction in line with the assured progress. In the absence
of such progress, the Respondent cannot insist upon further payments as a condition to claim
relief.
73.

Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical and unconditional. It does not make the

grant of interest contingent upon the quantum of sale consideration paid, nor does it provide
any defence to a defaulting promoter. Once delay in handing over possession is established, an
allottee who elects to remain in the project is entitled to interest for every month of delay,
irrespective of whether part or whole of the consideration has been paid, provided that the
payments already made are in accordance with the Agreement of sale. The Respondent’s plea
that only “partial sale consideration” has been paid and hence interest cannot be granted is
therefore 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
15 of 20

---

(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.
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."
75.
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:

16 of 20

---

76.

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.
77.

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
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.
78.

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..
79.

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.
80.

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

17 of 20

---

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.
82.

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.
83.

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.
84.

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.
86.

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.
87.

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.

18 of 20

---

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
demonstrating that the default is aligned with the actual stage-wise progress of
construction, and not merely on the basis of unilateral assertions.

19 of 20

---

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.
90.

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

91.

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
92.

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 Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

20 of 20

---