Order Complaint No.149 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 149/2025/TG RERA
Dated: 2nd September 2025
Quorum:

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

1. Mr.Raviteja Kotha,
2. Mrs.Tedla Sravani,
(Aliens Elite, E-404,
Prashanth Nagar, Miyapur,
Hyderabad, Telangana-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:
ORDER
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RE(R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE(R&D) Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the
Respondents.
A. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainant, are as follows:
3.

It was submitted that the Complainant was approached by the sales and marketing team

of the Respondent, Vasavi Realtors LLP, regarding the “Vasavi Lake City WEST” project

1 of 19

---

It was stated that on 28th January 2021, the Complainant had booked a flat, identified

as No. 31009 on the 10th floor of Tower 3, upon payment of a booking amount of Rs.
25,00,000/-. At that time, an assurance was provided by the Respondent's sales team that the
project completion date, including a six-month grace period, would be August 2023.
5.

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

unwarranted delays and, as of February 2025, remained incomplete. It was further submitted
that as of January 2025, the overall project completion was only an estimated sixty-five to
seventy percent.
6.

It was alleged that the Respondent had repeatedly postponed the handover date with

vague reasons. It was stated that a revised handover schedule was issued on 21st June 2024,
which indicated a new project completion date of 31st March 2025. Subsequently, during a
customer interaction meeting held on 8th September 2024, the Respondent had committed to
adhering to the revised schedule and agreed to provide compensation for the delay as per RERA
guidelines.
7.

It was further submitted that on 7th February 2025, another revised handover schedule

was issued, which detailed tower-wise handover dates but omitted an overall project
completion date. It was stated that despite the acknowledged delays, the Complainant had not
received any compensation, nor had any details regarding the intended compensation been
provided by the Respondent.
8.

It was submitted that the continued delay in possession constituted a serious violation

of the provisions of the RERA Act. 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 Complain-ant significant financial,
mental, and emotional distress.
B. Reliefs Sought
9.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondent to forthwith complete all pending construction and hand over
possession of the subject flat to the Complainant at the earliest, within a fixed and

2 of 19

---

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 direct result of the Respondent's negligence, false promises, and the
prolonged delay in the project.

C. Counter filed by the Respondents.
10.

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.
11.

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

Respondent obtained rights from the landowners under registered documents, covering a total
land area of 34,704.37 sq. yds. The requisite permissions for land conversion and for the
construction of multi-storied residential apartments were obtained on 07.02.2020. The project,
consisting of multiple towers and a clubhouse, was duly registered with this Authority vide
Registration No. P02500001821 dated 20.03.2020.
12.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. W. 031009

on the 10th Floor of Tower 3, admeasuring 1650 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 44 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. 75,93,000/out of which the Complainant paid Rs. 21,48,930/-.
13.

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

to hand over possession of the apartment on or before 31.08.2024, with a grace period of six
months. The said clause explicitly stated that the period of completion would stand extended
in the event of force majeure conditions, during which the allottee was not entitled to claim any
compensation for the delay.
3 of 19

---

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.
15.

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.
16.

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.
17.

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.
18.

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.
4 of 19

---

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.
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
21.

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

said objection was vague, unsupported, and legally untenable. The complaint had been filed
under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which explicitly
granted an aggrieved allottee the right to seek redressal. It was stated that the Agreement of
Sale dated 16th November 2021 clearly committed to handing over possession by 31st August
2023, and as the flat had not been delivered, the complaint was fully maintainable.
22.

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

agreement was described as legally unfounded and entirely unsustainable. It was submitted that
under Section 31 of the Act, an aggrieved allottee had a statutory and independent right to
approach the Hon'ble Authority, and the existence of any private dispute mechanism did not
oust the jurisdiction of the Authority. It was further stated that the Complainant had attempted
to engage with the Respondent, but these efforts were met with avoidance and nonresponsiveness.
23.

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

misconceived and procedurally irrelevant, as there was no such requirement under Section 31
of the Act.
24.

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

was the Respondent's failure to hand over possession of a livable flat as per the contractual
commitment. It was submitted that while the tower structure may have been complete, the
project was not in a habitable condition, with essential amenities such as lifts being nonfunctional.

5 of 19

---

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.
26.

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

grossly failed to comply with the obligations that accompanied such registration, particularly
those relating to timely possession and transparency. The Respondent's conduct postregistration showed a clear disregard for the regulations.
27.

It was submitted that the Respondent's reference to the booking date was legally

immaterial, as the rights and obligations were governed solely by the Agreement of Sale dated
16th November 2021, which committed to possession by 31st August 2023. The Complainant
had duly paid over 80% of the total consideration of ₹75,93,000/-, and the remaining balance
was due only at the time of possession.
28.

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, as per Section
19(2) of the RERA Act. The Respondent's conduct, in now citing a delivery date of February
2026, rendered the contract meaningless.
29.

The Complainant fully acknowledged the payment of the booking amount of

₹21,48,930/-. However, it was submitted that the Respondent's reference to specifications was
irrelevant to the core issue of delay. It was clarified that the balance consideration was
contractually linked to the possession milestone, and any insinuation that payments were
overdue was factually incorrect.
30.

It was submitted that the Respondent had selectively cited clauses while ignoring their

binding obligation to deliver possession on or before 31st August 2023. 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 was executed in
November 2021, after the major COVID-19 lockdowns. It was argued that a force-majeure
clause could not override the statutory right granted to allottees under Section 18(1) of the
RERA Act.
31.

The Respondent's selective quoting of Clause 7.2 was stated to be misleading and

premature, as the condition precedent of obtaining an occupancy certificate (OC) had not been
met. It was submitted that Clause 9, which dealt with promoter defaults, was fully applicable
and must be enforced.
6 of 19

---

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 and
honest disclosure of all relevant facts, whereas the Respondent had failed to meet their
contractual obligations and now sought to defer delivery to February 2026.
33.

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
16th November 2021, with full knowledge of the circumstances. The delay from 2023 to 2025
could not be blamed on the pandemic and was instead a result of mismanagement and
inefficiency.
34.

It was submitted that the legal extensions cited by the Respondent pertained only to

statutory limitation periods for initiating legal proceedings and had no bearing whatsoever on
a real estate developer's contractual obligations under the RERA Act.
35.

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 3 had been structurally completed more than
18 months prior, and the subsequent delay reflected a lack of intent and mismanagement on the
part of the builder.
36.

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 factually incorrect in the Complainant's
case.
37.

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, or worse, a
misrepresentation from the outset.
38.

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.
39.

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

could not be used as a blanket justification for delay. It was the legal responsibility of the

7 of 19

---

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.
41.

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 after the initial lockdown
period.
42.

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

disregard for the genuine hardships suffered by the Complainant, which had been clearly laid
out in Form M. Specific hardships were detailed, including commute difficulties for the
Complainant's family and the financial strain of renting an additional flat.
43.

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

scheduled for February 2026 and that the Complainant was in arrears. It was asserted that the
Complainant had never agreed to any extension and was not in default, having paid over 83%
of the consideration. The Respondent's "unconditional undertaking" was stated as not waiving
their legal liability for interest.
44.

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.
45.

It was noted that there was no para number 24 in the counter filed by the respondent.

46.

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.
47.

Finally, it was submitted that the Respondent's characterization of the complaint as

"preposterous" and "false" was unfounded. The Respondent's claimed reputation could not
override the specific facts of the case. The Complainants respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble
Authority take cognizance of the material facts and pass appropriate directions. It was also
8 of 19

---

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:
49.

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.
50.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

51.

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.

52.

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.
53.

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)
9 of 19

---

Even in cases where agreements contained arbitration clauses (which is not the case

here), the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble NCDRC have consistently held that such
clauses cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of consumer fora or statutory authorities
constituted under special enactments.
55.

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 Subsection (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.”*

56.

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:

10 of 19

---

57.

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:
48.

The Complainant has 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 provide
compensation as promised during a customer interaction meeting held on 08.09.2024.
49.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 16.11.2021 clearly

stipulated that possession of the subject flat would be handed over by 31.08.2023, with a grace
period of six months, ending on 29.02.2024. The Respondent has failed to hand over possession
even as of February 2025. Further, although the project was registered with TG RERA up to
February 2025 and later extended until 07.02.2026, the project remains incomplete, with
construction progress stalled at approximately 65-70% as per the Complainant’s submission.
The Complainant further submits that revised handover schedules issued on 21.06.2024 and
07.02.2025 were vague and failed to provide a definitive overall project completion date, and
no compensation for the delay has been provided despite assurances made by the Respondent.
50.

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
11 of 19

---

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

on 16.11.2021, well after the onset and initial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The
Respondent, being fully aware of the prevailing circumstances, nevertheless executed the
Agreement by specifically assuring completion of the project by August 2023. Having
consciously undertaken such commitment, the Respondent cannot now, with retrospective
justification, rely on Covid-19 as a defense to escape its contractual and statutory obligations.
Such conduct clearly amounts to holding out false assurances with mala fide intent.
52.

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 fully aware of the Covid-related
disruptions, as well as the Government notifications granting moratoriums for project
completion timelines. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent chose to provide a specific 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…".

53.

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.
54.

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
12 of 19

---

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

Authority, the project timeline now stands extended up to 07.02.2026, and therefore possession
shall be delivered by then. The Complainant, however, has questioned the validity and effect
of such extensions.
56.

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.”

57.

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:
a. 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Circular No.14 dated 13.05.2020),
b. 15.09.2020 to 15.03.2021 (Order No.15 dated 29.09.2020),
c. 15.03.2021 to 14.09.2021 (Order No.16 dated 01.06.2021).
58.
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.
59.

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
13 of 19

---

60.

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.
61

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:
62.

It is noted that there exists a discrepancy in the amounts stated to have been paid. The

Complainants contend that they have paid over 90% of the total consideration of ₹71,75,385/, whereas the Respondent asserts that only ₹21,48,930/- has been paid. The Complainants have
substantiated their claim by producing bank records evidencing that nearly 80% of the
consideration, inclusive of GST, has already been paid to the Respondent. In contrast, the
Respondent has merely referred to the booking amount collected at the time of execution of
the Agreement of Sale, without producing any substantive material such as demand notices,
transaction details, or any correspondence evidencing the alleged balance amount. In the
absence of such proof, the Respondent’s submission cannot be sustained and accordingly
stands rejected.
63.

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

in light of the Complainant’s submission, supported by evidence, that the project is only 6570% complete, with critical components such as lifts remaining non-functional. Despite
receiving 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 time has
14 of 19

---

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.

65.

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.
66.

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.
67.

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,

15 of 19

---

68.

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."

69.
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."

70.

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.

16 of 19

---

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.
72.

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..
73.

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.
74.

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.
75.

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.
76.

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.

17 of 19

---

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.
78.

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.
79.

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.
80.

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:
81.

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.
18 of 19

---

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

already pending against this Respondent in the same project, this Authority sternly warns
the Respondent that any further delay, non-compliance, or grievance brought to notice by
allottees shall invite section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
82.

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

83.

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
84.

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

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

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

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

19 of 19

---