Order Complaint No.144 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 144/2025/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

B. Pavan Kumar
(Flat 401, Block C, Girija Marvel,
Friends Colony, Chandanagar,
Hyderabad – 500050)

…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:

2.

ORDER
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 bearing No. W 051403,

admeasuring 1495 sq. ft., in the project “Vasavi Lake City East” situated at Manjeera Pipeline
1 of 21

---

It is stated that as per the agreed terms, the Complainant made 80% of the payment

towards the flat, with an understanding that the handover of the flat would take place by August
2023, and that possession could even be expected before the committed deadline.
5.

It is submitted that despite these assurances, the project has faced repeated delays

without valid justification. As of February 2025, the project remains incomplete. The
Respondent has allegedly postponed the handover date on multiple occasions, providing vague
reasons and failing to communicate a clear and firm timeline.
6.

The Complainant stated that as of January 2025, the construction progress was

approximately 70%, with key works such as interior finishing, common amenities, and
supporting infrastructure still pending. The Respondent has allegedly failed to provide any
detailed roadmap or completion schedule despite repeated follow-ups.
7.

It is contended that the Respondent’s actions amount to violation of the provisions of

the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, particularly with regard to failure to hand over possession within the
stipulated timeline despite having collected substantial payments upfront. This has caused
severe financial hardship, mental stress, and emotional distress to the Complainant.
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
completed within a fixed and enforceable timeframe, failing which strict penalties
should be imposed on the Respondent.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant
from the promised possession date of August 2023 until the actual date of handover,
at the rate prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, 2016.

2 of 21

---

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

C. Counter filed by the Respondent
9.

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.
10.

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.
11.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. W. 51403 on

the 12th Floor of Tower 2, admeasuring 2195 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 55.50 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. 93,45,750/out of which the Complainant paid Rs. 19,62,607/-.
12.

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.
13.

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.
14.

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
3 of 21

---

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.
16.

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.
17.

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.
18.

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.
19.

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.
4 of 21

---

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

said objection was not only vague but legally unfounded. The complaint had been filed under
Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which provided an
explicit statutory right to any aggrieved allottee to seek relief. It was stated that the Agreement
of Sale dated 15th June 2021 clearly stipulated the committed possession date as 31st August
2023, and as the flat remained undelivered, the complaint was well within legal bounds.
21.

The contention that the Complainant had not availed methods as 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 to approach the Hon'ble Authority. It was further stated that the Complainant
had made repeated attempts to communicate with the Respondent, but these efforts were met
with consistent avoidance tactics and an endless loop of blame-shifting between internal teams,
which effectively stonewalled the Complainant.
22.

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.
23.

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

construction were not in dispute; the issue lay in the Respondent's failure to deliver possession
on time as per contractual obligations.
24.

It was submitted that while the project was registered with RERA, the Respondent had

grossly failed to abide by the obligations that accompanied such registration, particularly those
relating to timely possession and transparency. The Respondent's conduct post-registration
showed a blatant disregard for the regulations, and their reply demonstrated a shocking lack of
respect towards the Hon'ble Authority.
25.

It was submitted that the Respondent's emphasis on the booking date was legally

irrelevant. As per the RERA framework, the Agreement of Sale dated 15th June 2021 was the
only binding document, which included the crucial possession commitment of 31st August
2023. It was stated that the Respondent's response also did not address the core issue of
inordinate delay in handing over possession, for which the Complainant was entitled to all legal
remedies under Section 18(1) and 19(4) of the RERA Act.
5 of 21

---

The Respondent's reliance on a RERA extension was described as legally flawed and

misleading. It was submitted that the possession date as agreed between the parties, 31st August
2023, must prevail for assessing delay, irrespective of any regulatory extensions. The
Respondent's conduct, in now citing a delivery date of February 2026, rendered the contract
meaningless.
27.

The Complainant fully acknowledged the payment of the booking amount of

₹19,62,607/-. However, it was submitted that the Respondent's emphasis on specifications was
entirely irrelevant to the core issue of delay. It was stated that there was no default whatsoever
on the part of the Complainant. It was explained that the latest demand letter for the 7th
instalment was received only on June 9, 2025, more than two years after the previous
instalment, during which time the prolonged silence and continued delay caused immense
financial and mental stress. It was clarified that the Complainant made the decision to approve
the instalment after verifying the flat's construction status and placing trust in the Hon'ble
Authority's commitment to protecting homebuyers.
28.

It was submitted that the Respondent had selectively cited clauses from the Agreement

to justify their delay. The Respondent had far exceeded even the six-month grace period. The
repeated reference to force majeure was described as legally untenable and factually
inapplicable, as the Agreement of Sale was executed on 15th June 2021, well after the nation
had emerged from full lockdown. It was argued that force majeure clauses could not override
statutory protections afforded to allottees under Section 18(1) of the RERA Act.
29.

The Respondent's selective quoting of Clause 7.2 was stated to be entirely misplaced,

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, must now be actively enforced as
the Respondent had unambiguously breached the possession timeline.
30.

The Complainant categorically denied the baseless, vague, and defamatory allegations

of acting with an "ulterior motive." It was submitted that the Complainant had made full
disclosure of all material facts, including the Agreement for Sale and proof of payments,
whereas the Respondent had repeatedly failed to meet their own promised timelines.
31.

While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was acknowledged, it was submitted that

the Respondent's reliance on it was misleading, as the Agreement for Sale was executed on

6 of 21

---

It was submitted that the legal provisions and extensions cited by the Respondent

related solely to statutory periods of limitation for filing legal proceedings and had no
applicability whatsoever to the contractual obligations of a real estate developer under the
RERA Act.
33.

The Respondent's statement regarding "various additional factors" was described as

vague, evasive, and devoid of any factual backing. It was submitted that the claim that
"customers were intimated from time to time" was simply untrue in the Complainant's case, as
any updates were received only after persistent follow-ups.
34.

The response by the Respondent, terming the committed possession date in a formally

executed Agreement of Sale as a product of "clerical and typographical mistakes," was
described as both self-incriminating and legally indefensible. It was submitted that this was a
dishonest afterthought and reflected a complete abdication of responsibility.
35.

The accusation that the Complainant's allegations were factually baseless was described

as an unfounded, derogatory, and blatant diversionary tactic. It was submitted that the
Complainant had provided extensive documentary evidence, while the Respondent's citation
of a RERA registration extension had no bearing on their contractual liability.
36.

It was submitted that while certain legal disputes may have arisen, the mere existence

of litigation involving third parties could not be used as a blanket justification for delay. It was
the legal responsibility of the promoter under Section 11(3)(a) of the RERA Act to ensure the
project was free of encumbrances.
37.

The Complainant challenged the Respondent to produce any formal written

communication that proactively disclosed delays. It was submitted that the pattern of repeatedly
outlining and then dishonouring revised timelines reflected a calculated approach to deflect
pressure, and to now question the reasonableness of pursuing a claim under RERA was deeply
unjust.
38.

The Complainant submitted that the claim for interest was a non-negotiable and

unconditional statutory right under Section 18(1) of the Act. The reliance on force majeure due
to COVID-19 was wholly misplaced as the Agreement was signed on 15th June 2021, a year
7 of 21

---

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

lack of sensitivity to the real and serious consequences suffered by the Complainant, which had
been clearly laid out in Form M. Specific hardships were detailed, including the Complainant's
separation from his family, the financial and physical strain of commuting between Hyderabad
and Mumbai, and the heavy emotional burden. It was also placed on record that the
Respondent's Managing Director had personally acknowledged the delays in meetings held on
22nd March 2025, and had categorically assured that every owner would be compensated at
the rate of ₹20 per sq. ft. per month.
40.

The Complainant strongly objected to the Respondent's claim that delivery was now

scheduled for February 2026 and that the Complainant had defaulted on payments. It was
asserted that the Complainant had never agreed to any extension and was not in arrears. The
Respondent's "unconditional undertaking" was stated as not waiving their legal liability for
interest.
41.

The response regarding the Complainant agreeing to the delay was described as another

attempt to deflect responsibility using afterthought excuses. It was stated that the Complainant
never agreed to excuse the delay. The new claim about rocky terrain reflected a lack of due
diligence and was a foreseeable project risk, not force majeure.
42.

The Respondent's statement that the Complainant was not entitled to any relief was

described as a sweeping and baseless denial of liability. It was submitted that the Respondent's
generic claim that the delay was "beyond their control" had been repeatedly refuted. The
Complainant had been patient and fulfilled all financial obligations, and the relief sought was
legally justified.
43.

Finally, it was submitted that the Respondent's claim that the complaint was

"preposterous" was baseless and contrary to the record. The Respondent's generic
"undertaking" and claims of a "good name" could not cure the default already committed.
Accordingly, the Complain-ant respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Authority grant interest for
the delayed period under Section 18(1) and pass any other appropriate directions.
E. Points for Consideration:

8 of 21

---

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:
45.

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

9 of 21

---

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.
51.

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
10 of 21

---

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 15.06.2021, 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 29.02.2024. 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.

11 of 21

---

58.

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
12 of 21

---

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
62.
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
13 of 21

---

In the present matter, it is evident that the Respondent has unilaterally revised

possession timelines first to February 2024, and thereafter to February 2026 due to the
extension taken without consultation or consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions
are impermissible. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9302], while upholding the
constitutional validity of RERA, categorically observed:
Para 119 “The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract
between the flat purchaser and the promoter."
Para 256 of this Judgment further clarifies that
“by giving opportunity to the promoter to prescribe fresh timeline under
Section 4(2)(l)(C), he is not absolved of the liability under the agreement
for sale”
67.

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:
It is noted that the Complainant has placed on record the Agreement of Sale along with the
relevant payment receipts. Based on the agreed payment schedule and the pleadings of the
parties, the Complainant submits that he has paid an amount of ₹19,62,607/- out of the total
sale consideration of ₹93,45,750/-, diligently and without any default. Further submitted that,
while the demand notices for the balance consideration have only been raised recently, for
nearly two years prior thereto there was neither any demand for payment raised by the
Respondent nor any progress at the project site.
The Respondent’s contention that 90% work is complete and that the Complainant has paid
only a portion of the consideration is wholly unsustainable. The Respondent has neither
14 of 21

---

The contention of the Respondent that 90% of the work is complete and that the

Complainant has paid only a part of the consideration does not absolve the Respondent of its
liability. Despite receipt of such substantial sums, the Respondent has failed to discharge its
contractual and statutory obligations by not completing the project within the stipulated period.
It is evident that the Respondent made assurances regarding timely completion, fully conscious
of prevailing circumstances and its own limitations, yet without the capacity to fulfil them.
More than two years have elapsed beyond the agreed date of possession, and still the project
remains incomplete and possession has not been delivered.
71.

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
15 of 21

---

16 of 21

---

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:
"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."

17 of 21

---

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
at the very root of the confidence that homebuyers are entitled to repose under the protective
framework of the RE(R&D) Act.

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.
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.
G. Directions of the Authority:
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
demonstrating that the default is aligned with the actual stage-wise progress of
construction, and not merely on the basis of unilateral assertions.
89.
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
20 of 21

---

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

---