Order Complaint No.157 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 157/2025/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

Phani Kumar Battar & S B Ashwini,
(Flat no 104, Narmada Sarovar Apartment,
GPRA road, Opp Gaman hospitals.
Indiranagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500032)
…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.

It was submitted that the Complainants had booked a unit, specifically a 3-bedroom,

1845 Sft flat on the 9th floor of the West wing of Tower 6, in the project “Vasavi Lake City”
1 of 19

---

The Complainants contended that the project has been significantly delayed beyond the

promised possession date of August 2023, as mentioned in the Agreement of Sale. It was
alleged that this delay has occurred without any valid reason, proper communication, or offer
of compensation from the Promoter. It was further submitted that the construction work was
halted for several months and has since proceeded at a very slow pace, and despite repeated
follow-ups, the Promoter has failed to provide a concrete reply regarding revised project
completion timelines.
5.

It was further alleged that there are severe quality issues and deviations from the project

specifications promised at the time of booking. The Complainants contended that the
Promoter’s marketing team made specific assurances which amounted to misrepresentation, as
many of the promised features and amenities have not been provided.
6.

The Complainants submitted a list of specific facilities that were allegedly promised

but have not been delivered. These include, inter alia: (i) the provision of three to four options
for flooring tiles for the owner to choose from; (ii) dado tiling in the kitchen; (iii) an option to
either accept the kitchen platform and sink provided by the builder or receive compensation in
lieu thereof; and (iv) other essential facilities that were originally planned but have now been
excluded or made optional. The Complainants stated that they seek clarity on the compensation
or price adjustment that will be provided for these exclusions.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
7.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

i. To direct the Respondent to complete all pending construction and hand over possession of
the subject flat to the Complainants at the earliest, within a fixed and enforceable timeframe to
be determined by this Honourable Authority, failing which to impose strict penalties for any
further delay.
ii. To direct the Respondent to pay interest on the total amounts paid by the Complainants,
calculated from the promised date of possession until the actual date of handover, at the rate
prescribed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

2 of 19

---

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.
9.

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.
10.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was allotted apartment No. W. 60909 on

the 9th Floor of Tower 6, admeasuring 1845 sq. ft., and an undivided share of 49 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. 77,62,250/- out of
which the complainant paid Rs. 24,70,073/-.
11.

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.
12.

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

clean hands but with an ulterior motive for unlawful gain, and that there had been a material
suppression of facts. While the existence of the Agreement of Sale was not in dispute, the

3 of 19

---

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.
14.

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.
15.

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.
16.

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.
17.

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.
4 of 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.
19.

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

said objection was vague, baseless, and legally unsustainable. The complaint had been filed
under the provisions of Section 31 read with Sections 18(1) and 19(4) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, to seek redressal for the inordinate delay in handing
over possession. It was stated that the Agreement of Sale was executed on 30th July 2021, with
a clearly stipulated possession date of August 31, 2023. As possession had not been handed
over by the complaint filing date of March 03, 2025, the complaint was maintainable both in
law and on facts.
20.

Regarding pre-complaint engagement, it was submitted that the Complainants had

made multiple good-faith efforts to communicate with the Respondent regarding the delay. All
such efforts and Minutes of Meetings (MoMs) had already been submitted along with Form M
and were on record, demonstrating repeated follow-ups and a lack of adequate response from
the Respondent.
21.

On the requirement of a legal notice, it was submitted that there was no statutory

requirement under RERA for serving a legal notice prior to filing a complaint.
22.

It was submitted that all facts, timelines, and obligations had to be assessed based on

the Agreement of Sale dated July 2021, and that the Respondent's obligations and delivery
schedule arose from this legally binding agreement.
23.

With respect to the lack of communication, it was submitted that the Respondent had

never proactively updated the Complainants about delays or construction milestones. It was
stated that project schedules were shared only after multiple follow-ups and none of the shared
timelines were met. It was reiterated that a RERA extension was for project completion and
that the date of possession mentioned in the Agreement of Sale was still contractually binding
on the respondent for the purpose of calculating "interest for delay" and other legal
consequences. It was argued that a RERA extension did not automatically modify the
5 of 19

---

The Respondent's reliance on force majeure (COVID-19) was addressed. It was

submitted that the Agreement of Sale was executed after COVID-19-related lockdowns had
already been lifted and construction activities had resumed across Telangana. Hence, the
Respondent was fully aware of ongoing challenges and could not claim force majeure as a
justification for delays.
25.

Regarding possession and the Occupancy Certificate (OC), it was stated that the

expectation was for a full OC only after the completion of the entire project with all amenities
as per the due timeline, making this an inappropriate point for discussion at that stage.
26.

The Respondent's vague, baseless, and defamatory allegations of ulterior motives were

categorically denied and strongly objected to. It was submitted that such statements were
entirely unsubstantiated and appeared designed to divert attention from the core issue—the
Respondent's failure to deliver possession by the committed date of 31st August 2023. It was
asserted that recourse to the Hon'ble Authority was a statutory right and that the Complainant
had made full and frank disclosure of all material facts.
27.

The Respondent's reliance on COVID-19 as a force majeure defense was described as

wholly misplaced. It was argued that the agreement was executed after pandemic-related
restrictions had been lifted and that there was a significant and unjustified gap in construction
activity, demonstrating that project progress had stalled due to reasons unrelated to any force
majeure event.
28.

The vague assertion that "various additional factors" impacted the project was

categorically denied. It was submitted that the delay had been cumulative, and after each
missed deadline, the Respondent simply provided a new tentative possession date, which had
occurred at least 3 to 4 times since the original promised date, none of which had been honored.
29.

The excuse that discrepancies in the agreement were clerical was described as

unacceptable, especially from a developer with over 30 years of claimed experience.
30.

It was submitted that the Respondent had violated four successive delivery dates:

August 2023, February 2024, February 2025, and June 30, 2025, all of which had lapsed.

6 of 19

---

It was stated that the Complainants were never formally informed of legal cases or

encumbrances affecting the project and that invoking such proceedings after the fact could not
excuse the failure to deliver possession.
32.

It was submitted that the Complainants had never signed or acknowledged any formal

extension of the possession timeline and challenged the Respondent to produce such
documentation.
33.

It was submitted that the decision to grant interest for delay was for the Hon'ble

Authority to decide under Section 18 of RERA, based on the evidence of repeated delay already
on record. The Complainants reiterated their claim for compensation for mental agony, distress,
and financial hardship, supported by records submitted with Form M.
34.

Regarding the issue of kitchen fittings, it was submitted that this was raised in the

original complaint due to a lack of clarity at the time. After the complaint was filed and
following multiple follow-ups, the Respondent had clarified that a compensation amount of
₹15,000 would be provided. It was submitted that the more critical issue was the inordinate
delay in delivery of possession.
35.

The Respondent's misleading claim that 90% of the project work had been completed

was categorically denied as factually incorrect and deceptive. It was clarified that the
Respondent was referring to 90% of the payment schedule being triggered, not the actual
physical progress of Tower 6, which was not even 60% complete. It was stated that despite
this, the Complainants had acted in good faith and the recently demanded payment had been
fully disbursed, with no dues pending.
36.

It was submitted that the Respondent could not shift the burden of external issues onto

buyers and that it was their contractual duty to complete the project as committed.
37.

It was stated that despite the Respondent's claims of a 30-year legacy, the facts showed

they had failed to meet basic contractual obligations, had missed four committed delivery dates,
and their communication had been poor and misleading.
38.

Finally, it was submitted that the Respondent had failed to justify the delays or support

their claims with adequate evidence. The Complainants, having complied with their obligations
and paid 90% of the consideration, requested that the Hon'ble Authority grant interest for delay,
compensation as per law, and a firm, enforceable delivery timeline.

7 of 19

---

In light of the submissions, the Complainants respectfully submitted that the

Respondent had failed to provide any lawful or credible justification for the delay. It was stated
that the repeated delays, shifting timelines, and misrepresentation of project status had caused
significant hardship. The Complainants, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Authority
be pleased to direct the Respondent to hand over possession in a time-bound manner, grant
interest for the delayed period under Section 18 of the Act, award compensation for mental
agony and inconvenience, and pass any other order as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
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?
F. Observations of the Authority:
Point 1:
45.

The Respondent has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present

complaint on the ground that the Complainants failed to first resort to the contractual dispute
resolution mechanism envisaged in the Agreement of Sale, namely an amicable settlement by
mutual discussion, prior to approaching this Authority.
46.

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons:

47.

The relevant Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of Sale is reproduced below

for ready reference:
33. Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of sale executed between
the parties, the said clause stated that all or any disputes arising out ot
touching upon or in relation to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, including the interpretation and validity of the terms thereof
and the respective rights and obligations of the Parties, shall be settled
amicably by mutual discussion, falling which the same shall be settled
through adjudication officer appointed under the Act.

8 of 19

---

It is clear from the above that the clause only requires the parties to attempt an amicable

settlement by mutual discussion. Such a clause is at best directory and cannot oust or restrict
the statutory jurisdiction of this Authority.
49

Section 79 of the RE(R&D) Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect

of any matter which this Authority, the Adjudicating Officer, or the Appellate Tribunal is
empowered to determine. Likewise, Section 88 clarifies that the provisions of the RE(R&D)
Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. Thus, the intention of the legislature
is that remedies under this beneficial legislation must remain open to allottees, irrespective of
any private clause for amicable settlement.
50.

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

here), the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble NCDRC have consistently held that such
clauses cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of consumer fora or statutory authorities
constituted under special enactments.
51.

In National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy (2012) 2 SCC 506, the

Supreme Court held that remedies under special statutes are in addition to, and not in derogation
of, other remedies. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
*“49. Support to the above view is also lent by Section 79 of the recently enacted
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Real Estate
Act").
Section
79
of
the
said
Act
reads
as
follows:‘79. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any
suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the
adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this
Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other
authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power
conferred by or under this Act.’
It can thus, be seen that the said provision expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court in respect of any matter which the Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
established under Subsection (1) of Section 20 or the Adjudicating Officer,
appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 71, or the Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal established under Section 43 of the Real Estate Act, is empowered to
determine. Hence, in view of the binding dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in A. Ayyaswamy (supra), the matters/disputes, which the Authorities under the
Real Estate Act are empowered to decide, are non-arbitrable, notwithstanding
an Arbitration Agreement between the parties to such matters, which, to a large
extent, are similar to the disputes falling for resolution under the Consumer Act.
56. Consequently, we unhesitatingly reject the arguments on behalf of the
Builder and hold that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of
9 of 19

---

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."
53.

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:

10 of 19

---

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.
55.

It is the case of the Complainants that the Agreement of Sale dated 30.07.2021 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% as per the Complainants’
submission.
56.

The Complainant submits 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.
(i) Whether the Covid-19 pandemic can be taken as a valid shield by the Respondent in the
present case?
57.

This Authority finds no merit in such 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.
58.

It is a settled principle that once a promoter has chosen to register a project and enter

into binding contractual commitments with allottees, he does so with full knowledge of the
risks, constraints, and challenges of the market. At the time of entering into the Agreement of
Sale with the present Complainant, the Respondent was already aware of the Covid-related
disruptions, as well as the Government notifications granting moratoriums for project
completion timelines. Despite this knowledge, the Respondent chose to provide a specific
assurance of delivery by August 2023.

11 of 19

---

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.
60.

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
61

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:

62.

The
“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.”
paramount objective is twofold: protection of consumer interest, and ensuring completion of
12 of 19

---

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.
64.

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”
65.

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.
66.

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.

13 of 19

---

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

Complainants state that they have paid 80% of the total consideration, diligently and without
default. The Respondent, however, avers that only ₹24,70,073/- has been paid The
Complainants have placed on record the payment receipts reflecting a sum of ₹1,00,95,437/towards the subject unit. In the absence of any contradictory documentary evidence produced
by the Respondent, and upon perusal of the material placed on record, including payment
receipts and demand letters submitted by the Complainants, this Authority is persuaded to
proceed on the basis that substantial payments have indeed been made. Accordingly, the
averment of the Complainants with respect to payment of a substantial portion of the
consideration is accepted for the purpose of adjudication of relief, subject to verification of
actual amounts at the stage of computation. The Agreement of Sale clearly stipulated that
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 timeline.
68.

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

paid only certain consideration amount. The complainant has already paid approximately 70–
80% of the agreed consideration. Despite receiving such substantial sums, the Respondent has
failed to honour its contractual obligations. It is manifest that the Respondent gave false
assurances, being fully conscious of the market situation, yet assuring dates of completion that
it had no capacity to honour. More time have elapsed beyond the stipulated date, yet the project
is neither complete nor possession handed over.
69.

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]:

70.

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.
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
14 of 19

---

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.
72

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
15 of 19

---

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:
"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."
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.

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
16 of 19

---

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..
78.

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.
79.

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.
80.

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.
81.

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.
82.

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.
83.

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
17 of 19

---

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.
85.

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:
86.

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
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.
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 Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

19 of 19

---