Order Complaint No.145 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 145/2025/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

Mr. Gadhamsetty Subhash Chandra Sekhar
(Flat No:203, Innova Residency,
Road No.4, Mythri Nagar, Madinaguda,
Miyapur, Hyderabad-500049).

…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Vasavi Realtor LLP,
(Rep by its Designated Partner, Vijay Kumar Yerram & Kandey Ramesh,
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:

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 was submitted that the Complainant, Sri Gadhamsetty Subhash Chandra Sekhar, and

the Respondent, Vasavi Realtors LLP, had executed an Agreement of Sale on 15th December
2020. The said agreement pertained to the purchase of Flat #W50803 in the project known as
1 of 20

---

It was stated that pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned agreement, the stipulated

date for the handover of possession of the flat was on or before August 2023. The Complainant
entered into the said agreement based on promotional materials and representations made by
the Respondent's sales personnel.
5.

It was contended that despite these assurances, the project had been subject to

unjustified delays and, as of February 2025, remained incomplete. It was alleged that the
Respondent had repeatedly postponed the handover date, provided vague reasons for the delay,
and failed to communicate a clear timeline for completion. The Complainant submitted that
having already paid the full consideration, they were left in a state of uncertainty and financial
distress.
6.

It was further submitted that as of January 2025, the project was only an estimated sixty

to seventy percent completed, with no significant work having been carried out since that time.
Key aspects of the project, including interior finishing, common amenities, and supporting
infrastructure, remained unfinished. It was alleged that despite multiple follow-ups, the
Respondent had failed to provide a clear roadmap or completion schedule.
7.

It was submitted that the continued delay in handing over possession constituted a

serious violation of the provisions of the RERA Act. It was contended that by collecting one
hundred percent of the payment upfront and subsequently failing to fulfill its contractual
obligations, the Respondent had clearly breached the governing guidelines. The complaint was
therefore filed to seek urgent intervention, financial compensation, and strict action against the
Respondent for the prolonged delay and lack of accountability, which had caused the
Complainant significant financial strain and emotional distress.
B. Reliefs Sought
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

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

2 of 20

---

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 distress, financial strain, and disruption to personal and professional life
suffered as a result of the Respondent's negligence, false promises, and the prolonged
delay in the completion of the project.

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. 50803 on

the 8th Floor of Tower 5, admeasuring 1495 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 40.36 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. 55,32,500/12.

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
3 of 20

---

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.
15.

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
4 of 20

---

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
20.

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 December 2020 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 statutory jurisdiction of RERA was not ousted by any private agreement's alternative
clause. 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.
23.

It was stated that the Respondent's development rights were not in dispute; the issue lay

in the Respondent's failure to deliver possession on time as per contractual obligations.
Similarly, it was acknowledged that approvals were obtained, but it was argued that having
permission did not discharge the legal responsibility of timely execution and handover.
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. 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.

5 of 20

---

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 December 2020
was the only binding document, which included the crucial possession commitment of 31st
August 2023. The Complainant had duly paid a sum of ₹47,84,000/- and was not in any default.
The Complainant, having complied fully, stood entitled to all legal remedies under Section
18(1) and 19(4) of the RERA Act.
26.

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 ₹47,84,000/-. However, it was

submitted that the Respondent's attempt to divert the discussion toward specifications was
unrelated to the core issue of delay in possession, especially after receiving over 82% of the
total sale consideration.
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 December 2020, 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 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 20

---

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 attempt to attribute the delay to labour migration was stated as not being applicable

to the facts, as the Complainant's unit in Tower 5 had been structurally completed more than
18 months prior. The delay post-structural completion reflected a lack of intent and
mismanagement on the part of the builder. It was also stated that there was no documentary
evidence to support the claim that allottees were formally informed of such delays.
34.

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.
35.

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.
36.

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.
37.

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.
38.

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.

7 of 20

---

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 December 2020.
40.

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

insensitivity to the real and severe consequences faced by the Complainant, which were clearly
laid out in Form M. Specific real-life impacts were cited, including logistical difficulties for
the Complainant and the unplanned financial strain of renting an additional flat.
41.

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 any payment
default, having paid 82% of the total consideration. It was submitted that the Respondent's
"unconditional undertaking" did not waive their legal liability to pay interest for the period of
delay already accrued.
42.

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 an internal project risk, not force majeure.
43.

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.
44.

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 Complainant 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:
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:

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 possession of the subject flat.
55.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 15.12.2020, 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 Complainants submit 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. The Respondent further
cites rocky terrain at the site, third-party disputes, and typographical errors in the possession
date as additional justifications.
(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 contentions. The Agreement of Sale was

admittedly executed on 15.12.2020, much after the onset and near subsiding of the Covid-19
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.

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.
13 of 20

---

67.

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.
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 not in dispute that the Complainant has paid ₹47,84,000/- out of the total sale

consideration of ₹55,32,500/-, diligently and without default. The Agreement clearly stipulated
possession by 31.08.2023, with a grace period of 6 months to 28.02.2024. Admittedly,
possession has not been delivered.
70.

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

Complainant has paid only partial consideration is wholly unsustainable. The Complainant has
already paid approximately 90% 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 assurances, being fully conscious of the market situation, yet assuring
dates of completion that it had no capacity to honour. More than one year has elapsed beyond
the stipulated date, yet the project is neither complete nor possession handed over.
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]:

14 of 20

---

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
(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:

15 of 20

---

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."
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
16 of 20

---

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.
81.

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.

17 of 20

---

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:
88.

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.

18 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.

19 of 20

---

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

---