Order Complaint No.146 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 146/2025/TG RERA
Dated: 2nd September 2025
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

1. Iruvanti Vasantha Lakhsmi
2. Iruvanti Venkata Ramana
(R/o Flat No. 202, A Block, Innovation Enclave,
Street No. 2, Lane No. 5, Tarnaka, Secunderabad - 500017)

…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.

The Complainants approached the Respondent’s Marketing Manager, Sri Sandeep, in

December 2022 regarding the project Vasavi Lake City, registered under RERA No.
P02500001819 (dated 20.03.2020). At that time, the Respondent assured them that the project

1 of 16

---

Subsequently, the Complainants booked Flat No. W 03 04 10 in West Wing Tower-3

on the 4th floor, admeasuring 1915 sq.ft. saleable area along with two car parking spaces, by
paying a booking amount of Rs.5,00,000/- plus GST of Rs.25,000/- totalling Rs.5,25,000/-.
Thereafter, the Complainants completed all required payments by 03.02.2022, and executed
the Agreement of Sale on 17.02.2022, wherein the Respondent committed to complete the
construction and deliver possession by August 2024, with a grace period of six months.
5.

The Complainants have stated that they have been making timely payments as per

demand raised by the Respondent, without any delay, and have already paid 90% of the sale
consideration.
6.

At present, the construction progress of the project is only about 70% across all

towers and amenities. Due to the delay, the Complainants, along with other buyers, pursued
the Respondent seeking clarity. A customer interaction meeting was held on 24.11.2024,
during which the Respondent extended the completion date by three weeks and assured that
their legal team would provide confirmation on compensation by 15.12.2024.
7.

However, on 07.02.2025, the Respondent circulated a revised handover schedule with

tower-wise delivery timelines, setting a new target of June 2025 for completion. No overall
project completion date was specified. Importantly, no compensation has been offered or paid
to the Complainants for the delay, nor has any amount been communicated by the
Respondent.
8.

The Complainants contend that they have been suffering continuous hardship due to

payment of interest on housing loan EMIs, and constant stress spending considerable time,
effort, and expenses incurred in repeated follow-ups with the builder.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
9.

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, within a fixed and enforceable timeframe, failing which strict
penalties be imposed.

2 of 16

---

To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amount paid by the Complainant
from the promised possession date of 31.08.2024 until the actual date of handover
along with interest at the prescribed rate under RERA for the entire delay period.

iii.

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation for the emotional and financial
hardships suffered due to the Respondent’s negligence, false promises and lack of
transparency.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent:
10.

It is submitted by the Respondent that the complaint is not maintainable either in law

or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the complainant has not followed
the remedies available under the Agreement for Sale for resolution of disputes before
approaching this Hon’ble Authority. Further, no prior legal notice was issued before filing
this complaint, which itself renders the application defective and not maintainable.
11.

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 multi-storied 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.
12.

It is further submitted that the Complainant was allotted an apartment in the project

vide booking dated 30.12.2021, and was allotted an apartment No. W.30410 on the 4th Floor
of Tower 3, admeasuring 1915 sq. ft., along with car parking, for a total consideration of
Rs.1,31,43,250/-. The Agreement of Sale sets out the carpet area, balcony/veranda area,
common area, and undivided share of land. The Complainant has paid Rs.27,60,083/towards the sale consideration, while the balance amount remains payable in accordance with
the agreed payment schedule.
13.

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

hand over possession of the flat and common areas by 31.08.2024, subject to extension in the
event of force majeure. The Agreement itself clearly records that timely delivery is the
essence of the contract but also recognises that the period of completion shall stand extended
3 of 16

---

It is submitted that the complainants have not come before this Hon’ble Authority

with clean facts but with an ulterior motive to make unlawful gain and that there has been
material suppression of facts of the case with regard to the claim and the relief sought therein.
15.

It is further stated that COVID-19 is a force majeure event duly recognized under law,

and hence the timelines stood extended. The Respondent contended that the COVID-19
pandemic, subsequent lockdowns, and migration of labourers had severely impacted
construction work. The Respondent further relies on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
was excluded for the purposes of computation of limitation across various statutes. It is
contended that the extension of time for completion of the project was not only factually
justified but also recognised in law.
16.

In addition to COVID-19, the Respondent submits that unforeseen site conditions

such as rocky terrain requiring manual excavation further delayed the project. Owing to
restrictions on blasting due to the residential nature of the surrounding locality, excavation
could only be done manually, which compounded the delay. These challenges were
communicated to all allottees through regular updates and meetings.
17.

The Respondent also submits that certain third-party disputes adversely impacted the

project timelines. These include cases such as RERA Case No. 190/2020, W.P. Nos.
2694/2021, 13898/2022, 33433/2023, W.A. No. 584/2023, SLP Nos. 9694–9695/2023, and
W.P. No. 26301/2024, some of which are still pending. While most have been resolved, their
pendency at various points of time hindered the smooth progress of the project.
18.

It is contended that the project has been executed strictly in accordance with approved

plans and specifications, and any clerical or typographical errors in the Agreement of Sale
cannot be construed to create liability. It is the case of the Respondent that more than 90% of
the project construction is completed and the project is presently in its final finishing stage.
An extension of registration has already been granted by this Authority till 07.02.2026, within
which period the Respondent undertakes to deliver possession of the apartments to all

4 of 16

---

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

in view of the force majeure conditions, no such relief is available to the Complainant under
law. Section 6 of the Act specifically contemplates force majeure events such as natural
calamities and other circumstances beyond the control of the promoter. The Respondent
submits that the COVID-19 pandemic, together with the extraordinary circumstances outlined
above, clearly falls within the scope of force majeure.
E. Points for Consideration:
20.

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:
21.

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.
22.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

23.

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.

5 of 16

---

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.
25.

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.
26.

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.
27.

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.”*

6 of 16

---

Similarly, in Aftab Singh &Ors. v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. &Ors. (Consumer Case No.

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

29.

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:
30.

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

delay in handing over possession of the subject flat and that the Respondent has failed to
deliver promised amenities as per the Agreement of Sale.
31.

It is the case of the Complainants that the Agreement of Sale dated 17.02.2022,

executed between the parties, clearly stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be
handed over by 31.08.2024, with a grace period of six months, ending on 28.02.2025. The
Respondent has failed to hand over possession even as on date. Further, although the project

7 of 16

---

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?
33.

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,
nevertheless executed the Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by
August 2023. Having consciously undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now,
with retrospective justification, rely on Covid-19 as a defense to escape its contractual and
statutory obligations. Such conduct clearly amounts to holding out false assurances with mala
fide intent.
34.

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.
35.

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…".
8 of 16

---

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.
37.

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 2022 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
38.

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. 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.”
39.

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).
9 of 16

---

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.
41.

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”
42.

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.
43.

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:
44.

It is noted that there is a discrepancy in the amounts paid as averred by the parties.

The Complainants state that they have paid 90% of the total sale consideration out of
₹1,31,43,250/-, diligently and without default. The Respondent, however, avers that only
₹27,60,083/- has been paid. In the absence of a rejoinder and based on the material on record,
or payment recipets neiether the complainant ha ssubmitted rejoinder enclosing any payment
10 of 16

---

The Respondent’s contention that 90% of the construction work has been completed

and that the Complainants have paid only a partial amount of the sale consideration is found
to be unsustainable. This Authority notes that the Complainants have asserted that they have
paid approximately 90% of the total consideration amount diligently, which has not been
specifically denied or disproved by the Respondent through cogent evidence.
46.

Although the Respondent has referred to the Agreement of Sale and has not expressly

disputed the receipt of substantial payments from the Complainants, this Authority finds no
evidence of any formal demand notices, reminders, or default notices having been issued by
the Respondent to the Complainants for any alleged payment default. In the absence of such
documentary evidence, the claim of non-payment or delayed payment by the Complainants
does not hold merit. Further, it is a settled principle under the RE(R&D) Act that while the
allottee is bound to make payments as per the agreed schedule, the promoter, in turn, is
expected to ensure progress in construction and timely delivery. The promoter cannot
demand continued payment from the allottee if the construction is not commensurate with the
stage-wise milestones, unless delay in payment has been duly established and appropriately
intimated through notices as required under the law. In the present case, no such compliance
by the Respondent has been shown.
47.

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.
11 of 16

---

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.
49.

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.
50.

Now, Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act is categorical:
(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an
apartment, plot or building,—

(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case
may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of
suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any
other reason,
he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes
to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy
available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that
apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate
as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the
manner as provided under this Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the
project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of
delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be
prescribed.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss
caused to him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is
being developed or has been developed, in the manner as provided
under this Act, and the claim for compensation under this subsection
shall not be barred by limitation provided under any law for the time
being in force.
(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
12 of 16

---

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."
52.
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."
53.

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.
54.

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 RE(R&D)
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

13 of 16

---

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. The exact computation shall be subject to verification of such
payments by the Respondent at the stage of effecting payment.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.
56.

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.
57.

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.
58.

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.
59.

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.
60.

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.
14 of 16

---

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.
62.

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.
63.

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:
64.

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
15 of 16

---

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.
88.

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

89.

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
90.

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

16 of 16

---

---