Order Complaint No.154 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 154/2025/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. Subramanya Sarma Neralla
(Flat No, 105, Block-A, Sri Sairam Towers,
Old Hafeezpet, Near Alwyn Cross Road,
Miyapur, Telangana, Pin No. 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, Sri Subrahmanya Sarma Neralla, had booked a

flat, identified as Unit WT030407, in the project “VASAVI LAKE CITY - WEST WING” on
1 of 18

---

It was further submitted that pursuant to the terms of the said Agreement for Sale,

possession of the flat was to be handed over by August 2023, with an additional grace period
of six months. It was contended that the Respondent had failed to deliver possession of the unit
within the stipulated timeline.
5.

It was alleged that despite repeated requests and follow-ups, the Respondent had failed

to provide a concrete timeline for the completion and handover of the project. It was stated that
the construction work at the site had been stalled or significantly delayed, and the Respondent
had provided only vague and misleading updates regarding the progress, failing to
communicate the reasons for the delay in a transparent manner.
6.

It was further contended that the Respondent had attempted to revise the possession

date on multiple occasions without providing any valid justification and that the amenities
promised as part of the project were not being constructed. It was submitted that this delay had
caused the Complainant significant financial and emotional distress, as they had invested their
hard-earned money and were burdened with paying Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) to
banking institutions.
7.

It was also submitted that a difference in the dimensions of the rooms from what was

agreed upon had been observed.
B. Reliefs Sought
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

i.

To direct the Respondent, Vasavi Group, to forthwith complete all pending works and
hand over immediate possession of the flat bearing number WT030407, situated in the
project ‘Vasavi Lake City - West Wing’, to the Complainant, within a specific and
enforceable timeline to be determined by this Honourable Authority.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to pay interest for the period of delay, calculated from the
promised date of possession until the actual date of handover, at such rate as prescribed
under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

2 of 18

---

To direct the Respondent to pay adequate compensation to the Complainant for the
financial losses, damages, and mental anguish incurred as a direct result of the inordinate
delay.

iv.

To direct the Respondent to provide a clear and detailed account of the compensation to
be paid in lieu of the kitchen platform as previously agreed, and to pay the said amount
to the Complain-ant forthwith.

v.

To direct the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant for the discrepancy
and reduction in room dimensions from the specifications provided in the Agreement
for Sale.

vi.

To impose such penalties upon the Respondent as are deemed appropriate by this
Honourable Authority for the violation of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016.

vii.

To pass any such other order or orders as this Honourable Authority may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

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. 030407

on the 4th Floor of Tower 3, admeasuring 1650 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 46 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. 96,22,500/out of which the Complainant paid Rs. 96,22,500/-.
3 of 18

---

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

to hand over possession of the apartment on or before 31.08.2023, with a grace period of six
months. The said clause explicitly stated that the period of completion would stand extended
in the event of force majeure conditions, during which the allottee was not entitled to claim any
compensation for the delay.
13.

It was contended that the Complainant had not approached this Hon’ble Authority with

clean hands but with an ulterior motive for unlawful gain, and that there had been a material
suppression of facts. While the existence of the Agreement of Sale was not in dispute, the
Respondent averred that the Complainant made false claims despite being aware of the
contractual terms and circumstances.
14.

The Respondent stated that the project timelines were severely impacted by the

COVID-19 pandemic, which was a force majeure event recognized under law. It was submitted
that following the declaration of a public health emergency in January 2020, a nationwide
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
4 of 18

---

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

such reliefs were not maintainable in view of the force majeure conditions. It was argued that
the circumstances clearly fell within the definition provided under Section 6 of the Act. The
Respondent maintained that the delay was not due to any deliberate act or default on its part,
and therefore, the Complainant had not established any legal basis for claiming compensation
for mental agony or financial loss.
19.

The Respondent concluded that the complaint was preposterous and without

foundation. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the Respondent be allowed to
complete the project and deliver possession to all allottees as per the extended timeline.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
20.

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 30th August 2021 clearly committed to handing over possession by 31st August
2023, and as the flat had not been delivered and the project stood at less than 85% complete as
of the complaint filing date of 1st March 2025, the complaint was fully maintainable.
21.

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
all relevant evidence, including Minutes of Meetings and Form M, had already been submitted
in support of the claims, and that all possible means to establish contact with the builder had
been exhausted.
22.

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. It was further noted that the Respondent was well aware of the grievance, as repeated
follow-ups were shown in previous communications, making further notice futile.
5 of 18

---

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

construction, RERA registration, and the payment of the booking amount of ₹96,22,500/- were
not in dispute.
24.

It was submitted that as per the RERA Act, the Agreement for Sale was the primary

document, which clearly stated the committed possession date as 31st August 2023, and that
the booking date was not the key date for delay claims.
25.

With regard to the extension of the project's registration, it was submitted that the

builder had never proactively informed the complainants about delays or progress and had
failed to adhere to schedules that were only shared after repeated follow-ups.
26.

The Respondent's reliance on Clauses 5 and 7 of the Agreement was described as

misconceived and contrary to settled legal principles. It was argued that while Clause 7.1 itself
stated that timely delivery was the essence of the Agreement, the Respondent's claim that a
force majeure clause allowed for an automatic extension did not override the statutory right to
compensation. It was submitted that the Respondent had failed to prove any genuine force
majeure event. It was highlighted that the Complainant made all payments despite severe
personal hardship, and the same standard applied to the Promoter.
27.

The Respondent's 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 squarely applicable, entitling
the Complainant to either terminate the Agreement or claim interest for every month of delay.
The Respondent's reliance on these clauses only confirmed their default.
28.

The Respondent's allegation that the complaint had been filed with an ulterior motive

was denied in toto. It was submitted that the Complainant had approached the Hon'ble
Authority with clean hands, placing all material facts and documents on record. The vague and
unsubstantiated allegation of 'material suppression' was described as an attempt to deflect
attention from their own breach.
29.

It was submitted that while the COVID-19 pandemic was a global emergency, the

Agreement for Sale was executed after its onset, with the Promoter having full awareness of
the prevailing circumstances when committing to a possession date of 31st August 2023. It was
poignantly noted that the Complainant had tragically lost his wife to the pandemic and, despite
facing immense financial strain and mental trauma, had not defaulted on any payment. In
6 of 18

---

The Respondent's reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's extension of limitation

periods was described as misconceived and irrelevant to the present matter. It was argued that
those orders had no bearing on the contractual obligation to complete a project on time.
31.

The Respondent's attempt to justify the delay by citing the migration of labourers was

described as misplaced and factually unsustainable. It was argued that the Respondent was
fully aware of the pandemic's risks when executing the Agreement and had failed to produce
any specific evidence of steps taken to mitigate the impact.
32.

The Respondents' vague reference to 'various additional factors' was described as

wholly unspecific and unsupported by evidence. It was submitted that no formal written notices
or revised possession timelines had been provided to justify the delay.
33.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent's assertion that the possession date was

a 'clerical or typographical error' was an afterthought, had no legal basis, and amounted to sheer
negligence. Ample evidence, including the Agreement for Sale dated 31st August 2021, had
been produced to establish the delay. It was argued that a party could not disown the express
terms of a registered contract by loosely claiming mistakes.
34.

The Respondent's claim that the allegations were baseless was stated to be entirely false.

It was argued that the extension of the project's RERA registration was distinct from the
specific possession date agreed with the allottee and did not extinguish the right to claim
interest or compensation.
35.

The Respondent's reference to third-party disputes was described as vague and

unsubstantiated. It was argued that it was the promoter's responsibility under the RERA Act to
ensure the project was free of encumbrances, and these risks had not been proactively
disclosed.
36.

The Respondent's claim regarding general communications was stated to be completely

untenable. It was argued that generic updates did not dilute the binding contractual obligation
and that the communications were vague and did not provide any clear revised timeline.

7 of 18

---

The Respondent's assertion that no interest could be claimed was described as factually

and legally untenable. It was submitted that under Section 18(1) of the Act, an allottee had an
explicit statutory right to claim interest for any delay.
38.

The assertion that the claim for compensation was arbitrary and baseless was described

as wholly misleading and contrary to law. It was argued that the inordinate delay had caused
substantial mental stress, financial hardship, and loss of opportunity, which flowed directly
from the Respondent's breach.
39.

The statement that flats would be delivered by February 2026 was submitted as not

absolving the Respondent of liability for the delay beyond the originally agreed possession
date. It was argued that the demand for balance payments was premature when possession had
not been delivered.
40.

The assertion that the Complainant had 'agreed' to the reasons for delay was described

as wholly misconceived and not supported by any legally valid consent. The new claim about
rocky terrain was stated to reflect a lack of due diligence and was a foreseeable commercial
risk.
41.

The averments that the Complainant was not entitled to any relief were denied as false,

baseless, and untenable in law. It was submitted that the Respondent had failed to substantiate
its claim that the causes for delay were genuinely beyond its control.
42.

The Respondent's sweeping claim that the complaint was 'preposterous' was stated to

be baseless and contrary to the record. It was argued that the Respondent's claimed reputation
was irrelevant to the dispute, which had to be decided on its own facts. The right to claim
interest and compensation was described as statutory and not discretionary.
E. Points for Consideration:
44.

Upon a careful perusal of the record and the submissions advanced by both parties, oral

as well as written, this Authority is of the view that the following issues arise for determination
in the present complaint:
1. Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority?
2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

8 of 18

---

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 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.

47.

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.
48.

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.
49.

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.
50.

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:
9 of 18

---

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.”*

51.

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

10 of 18

---

52.

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:
53.

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

delay in handing over of possession of the subject flat.
54.

It is the case of the Complainant that the Agreement of Sale dated 30.08.2021 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 on the date of filing the complaint. 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 60-70% as per the
Complainant’s submission.
55.

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

completion, while allottees continue to suffer. Additionally, specific amenities, such as the
kitchen platform, have not been provided, and discrepancies in room dimensions have been
observed. 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, thirdparty disputes, and typographical errors in the possession date as additional justifications.

11 of 18

---

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

on 30.08.2021, 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.
59.

This Authority aligns with the observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in

Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine
Bom 9302], wherein at para 119 it was categorically observed:
"While the proposal is submitted, the Promoter is supposed to be conscious of
the consequences of getting the project registered under RERA. Having
sufficient experience in the open market, the Promoter is expected to have a
fair assessment of the time required for completing the project…".

60.

The above dictum fortifies the principle that the promoter, being structurally at an

advantageous position with respect to project information and market realities, is under a
statutory duty to provide realistic timelines. The framework of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 reinforces this obligation by mandating timely completion and
possession within the period stipulated in the Agreement of Sale.
61.

Therefore, the plea of Covid-19 as a force majeure defence in the present case is wholly

untenable. The Respondent, having executed the Agreement of Sale in August 2021 with
specific possession timelines, cannot now seek to retrospectively attribute delays to the
pandemic. Accordingly, this Authority holds that the reliance on Covid-19 as a shield stands
rejected.
(ii) Extension of Registration
62.

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

Authority, the project timeline now stands extended up to February 2026, and therefore

12 of 18

---

At the outset, it must be clarified that under the scheme of the RE(R&D) Act:
“An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and promotion
of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, as the case
may be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and transparent manner and to
protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to establish an
adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also to establish the
Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions, directions or orders of the Real
Estate Regulatory Authority and the adjudicating officer and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.”

64.

The paramount objective is twofold: protection of consumer interest, and ensuring

completion of projects in an efficient manner. Denial of extension during the Covid-19
disruption would have resulted in projects being stalled, to the grave prejudice of allottees. It
was in this context that this Authority, balancing the equities, granted extensions in line with
the moratoriums issued by Telangana RERA:
1. 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Circular No.14 dated 13.05.2020),
2. 15.09.2020 to 15.03.2021 (Order No.15 dated 29.09.2020),
3. 15.03.2021 to 14.09.2021 (Order No.16 dated 01.06.2021).
65.

Accordingly, an aggregate 18 months’ extension was applied across projects to

safeguard larger consumer interest. However, it is equally well settled that such regulatory
extensions cannot dilute the contractual rights of individual allottees under their respective
Agreements of Sale, nor can they displace the statutory rights flowing from Section 18 of the
RE(R&D) Act.
66.

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

possession timelines first to February 2024, and thereafter to February 2026 due to the
extension taken without consultation or consent of the Complainants. Such unilateral revisions
are impermissible. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. [2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9302], while upholding the
constitutional validity of RERA, categorically observed:
Para 119 “The RERA does not contemplate rewriting of contract between the
flat purchaser and the promoter."

13 of 18

---

67.

The above dicta makes it abundantly clear that any extension granted by the Authority,

or revised timelines uploaded on the TG RERA project registration portal, do not ipso facto
alter or bind the allottees’ contractual rights. The agreed date of possession remains as
stipulated in the Agreement for Sale, and unilateral extensions by the promoter cannot be
foisted upon allottees to their detriment.
68.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the revised possession dates mentioned by the

Respondent, whether while seeking extensions before the Authority or as updated on the
registration portal, cannot be treated as binding on the Complainants.
(iii)Relief under Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act:
69.

It is noted that the Complainant has paid the entire sale consideration diligently and

without any default. However, despite having received substantial sums, the Respondent has
failed to hand over possession of the allotted unit.
70.

As per the terms of the Agreement of Sale, possession was to be delivered by

31.08.2023, with a grace period extending until 29.02.2024. Admittedly, possession has not
been delivered within the said period.
71.

This clearly establishes that the Respondent has failed to honour its contractual

obligations. The conduct of the Respondent indicates a pattern of false assurances, despite
being fully aware of its inability to meet the timelines promised under the Agreement. The
project remains incomplete even after the expiry of the stipulated date of delivery.
72.

Under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the

liability of the promoter in such situations 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

14 of 18

---

73.

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."
74.
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:

15 of 18

---

75.

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.
76.

Thus, in the present case, the Authority finds the Respondent in clear breach of both

contractual and statutory obligations. Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled to interest at the
prescribed rate from 01.03.2024 (i.e., post grace period) till actual possession is handed over.
77.

As regards the prayer for compensation, this Authority notes that such claims fall within

the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71, for which the Complainant is at
liberty to pursue a separate application in Form ‘N’.
78.

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.
79.

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.
80.

Accordingly, this Authority hereby sternly warns the Respondent promoter that any

further default, non-compliance, or failure to deliver possession within the assured statutory

16 of 18

---

This Authority shall not hesitate to take the strictest view in future, for the RE(R&D)

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.
G. Directions of the Authority:
82.

In view of the findings and observations recorded hereinabove, this Authority proceeds

to issue the following directions:
a. The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent regarding the maintainability of
the complaint on account of the Dispute Resolution Clause in the Agreement of Sale
stands rejected. The complaint is maintainable before this Authority.
b. The Respondent’s reliance on the Covid-19 pandemic as a ground of force majeure is
held untenable, since the Agreement of Sale was executed after the subsiding of the
pandemic and with full knowledge of the prevailing circumstances.
c. The extension of registration taken by this Respondent cannot dilute the contractual
rights of the Complainant under the Agreement of Sale. The date of possession as
stipulated in the Agreement shall prevail.
d. The Respondent is held liable for failure to hand over possession of the subject flat by
the agreed date i.e., 28.02.2024 (inclusive of grace period).
e. The Complainants are entitled to interest at the rate of 10.85% per annum (being SBI
MCLR + 2% as per Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017), computed on the
amounts paid, with effect from 01.03.2024 until actual handing over of lawful
possession. The Respondent shall pay the arrears accrued up to the date of this Order
within sixty (60) days, and shall thereafter continue to pay the accruing interest on a
monthly basis, on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month, until possession is
delivered.
f. Insofar as compensation is concerned, the Complainant is at liberty to pursue
appropriate proceedings before the Learned Adjudicating Officer under “Form N”.
g. The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the project forthwith and hand over
possession to the Complainants within the statutory timelines.
83.

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
17 of 18

---

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

85.

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
86.

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

18 of 18

---