Order Complaint No.160 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 160 of 2024
Dated this 4th day of September 2025

Quorum:

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

Between:
Pratik Jalan
(R/o Plot no.54, Temple Rock Enclave, Tarbund Secundrabad- 500003

…Complainant

Versus
The Building Co .(The Rasagna North")
(Represented by Mr. Ajay Salike, Plot no.E11, Vikrampuri Colony, Karkhana, Secundrabad- 500009)
…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of Counsel Damodar Mundra for the Complainant and Counsel
Drupad Sangwan, , for the Respondent, and upon hearing both the arguments on both sides and
the matter reserved over for the consideration till this date ,this Authority passes the present
complaint order.
ORDER
2.

The Complainant has filed complaint on hand under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and 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 "Rules"), alleging commission of violation and contravening of
the provisions of the said Act and Rules and sought for the appropriate reliefs against the
Respondent.
A. Brief Facts of the Case as per Allegations/Averments Contained in the Complaint:

3.

The Complainant entered into a transaction with the Respondent, M/s The Building Co.,
a real estate development firm, represented by its authorised signatory, Mr. Ajay Salike, for
the purchase of Flat No. B-510 in the residential project titled "TBC Rasagna North",
situated at Pet Basheerabad, Kompally, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,
Telangana – 500014.

4.

The initial booking of the said flat was made by the Complainant in September 2019,
pursuant to which an aggregate advance amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs
only) was paid to the Respondent through bank transfers on 12.09.2019 (Rs. 5,00,000/-),
1 of 14

---

As per the said MoU dated 27.02.2020, the subject flat was described as having a builtup area of 1152 sq. ft., with the total consideration fixed at Rs. 48,38,400/- (Rupees Forty
Eight Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred only). The MoU stipulated that
possession of the flat would be delivered within 30 months from the date of issuance of
building permission by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), with an
additional grace period of 6 months.

6.

The GHMC granted building permission for the project on 15.02.2020 vide Permit No.
1/C25/02247/2020. Accordingly, the outer limit for delivery of possession, including the
grace period, was calculated as 14.08.2023. It is submitted that the total amount of Rs.
15,00,000/- had already been paid by the Complainant prior to execution of the aforesaid
MoU.

7.

Thereafter, upon obtaining registration of the project from the Telangana Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) on 10.09.2020 (Registration No. P02200002100), the
Respondent issued a revised MoU on 19.09.2020, which broadly reaffirmed the earlier
terms with minor clarificatory modifications.

8.

Subsequently, an Agreement of Sale was executed between the Complainant and the
Respondent on 23.08.2023. However, the Complainant contends that the said Agreement of
Sale is one-sided and fails to adequately protect his rights and interests as an allottee.

9.

In view of the inordinate delay in delivery of possession and the alleged conduct of the
Respondent, which has caused mental agony and reputational harm to the Complainant, the
Complainant now seeks to withdraw from the project.

B. Relief(s) Sought:
10.

To direct the Respondent to refund the entire sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty

Lakhs Only) paid by the Complainant to date, along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum
calculated from the respective dates of payment.
C. Respondent’s Reply
11.
The Respondent has, at the outset, denied the locus standi and cause of action of the
Complainant to file the present complaint. Further that the Complaint is based on an erroneous
interpretation of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 as
2 of 14

---

The Respondent has submitted that it is a prominent real estate company based in

Hyderabad, India, focusing on both residential and commercial projects. The company claims
to have a strong reputation for delivering quality construction and completing projects on time,
with its operations extending across Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The company places a
strong emphasis on unique design and customer satisfaction.
13.

The Respondent has submitted that it is the developer of the project known as "TBC

Rasagna North", situated on land admeasuring 13011.24 square yards (equivalent to 10879.05
square meters), located in Sy No: 103/A of Kompally Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma
Mandal, and Sy Nos 25/1/A, 25/1/AA, 25/1/A/AA/A/2, and 25/1/AA/AA/S of Pet-Basheerabad
Village, Suthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana. The said project has
been registered under RERA on 24.08.2020 vide Registration Number P02200002100.
14.

The Respondent has stated that the project ‘TBC Rasagna North’ was conceptualized

with the primary objective of providing homes to a large number of homebuyers. The
Respondent claims to have worked diligently to complete the project and provide quality homes
to the allottees.
15.

The Respondent has submitted that the Complainant had approached it after learning

about the project and expressed interest in purchasing Flat No. 510, situated on the 5th Floor of
Block B in the said project (hereinafter referred to as the “Scheduled Unit” or “Flat”). A
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between the parties on 27.02.2020
regarding the said transaction.
6.

The Respondent has explained that due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic,

which qualifies as a ‘force majeure’ event under the applicable laws, the progress of the project
was initially hampered. Notwithstanding this setback, the Respondent contends that it made
continuous efforts to proceed with the construction activities and fulfill its obligations.
7.

It has been submitted that when the Complainant observed substantial progress in the

project as of 23.08.2023, the parties executed a formal Agreement of Sale with clearly
stipulated payment terms, which were essential to the process of transfer of the scheduled flat.
These terms were encapsulated in Schedule E of the Agreement.

3 of 14

---

The Respondent has averred that the Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2023 clearly

provides for delivery of possession in December 2024. However, due to a typographical error,
one clause in the Agreement incorrectly mentions “Before December 2023.” The Respondent
submits that when read as a whole, the true intention of the parties and the correct possession
date (i.e., December 2024) becomes evident. The conduct of the Complainant, including
communications and payment schedules, further supports this interpretation.
9.

The Respondent has submitted that the Complainant was required to make timely

payments in accordance with the construction stages outlined in Schedule E. The Respondent
has produced WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties which purportedly evidence
that the Complainant accepted the demand for a payment of Rs. 5, 00,000 on 28.11.2023.
Subsequent demands were raised in June and July 2024 for further installments totaling
approximately Rs. 45,00,000 towards completion of the 5th floor slab. However, the
Complainant admitted in messages dated 08.05.2024 and 17.06.2024 that he was facing
financial difficulties and had only paid Rs. 25,00,000 as of 17.06.2024, with over Rs. 13,00,000
remaining unpaid as of 28.06.2024. In July 2024, after the 5th slab was completed, the
Complainant paid only Rs. 5,00,000 on 04.07.2024 and failed to make further payments despite
assurances.
10.

The Respondent contends that repeated requests were made to the Complainant to

adhere to the agreed payment terms, but the Complainant failed to comply. This has caused the
Respondent substantial hardship, especially as the project is at an advanced stage.
11.

The Respondent submits that despite being fully aware of the fundamental payment

obligations tied to the transfer of the flat, the Complainant has willfully failed to comply with
the same.
12.

It is the case of the Respondent that the Complainant has approached the Authority with

mala fide intentions and unclean hands. The Complainant’s aim, it is alleged, is to drag the
Respondent into litigation while being fully aware of his own contractual defaults.
13.

The Respondent reiterates that the Complainant, despite knowing the true date of

possession and the payment obligations under the Agreement of Sale, has deliberately filed a
baseless complaint to mislead this Hon’ble Authority and escape his own responsibilities.
14.

The Respondent has submitted that the complaint is premature and devoid of cause of

action. The Agreement for Sale dated 23.08.2023 clearly provides for possession in December
4 of 14

---

The Respondent has argued that the Complainant’s own breach of the payment schedule

has disrupted the Respondent’s financial planning and construction schedule. The Respondent
contends that no party can benefit from their own default and therefore, the Complainant is
disqualified from seeking relief.
16.

The Respondent has reiterated that it has acted in good faith to meet its delivery

obligations, but the Complainant’s default at a crucial stage of construction has caused undue
prejudice. The Complainant is now attempting to take advantage of his own wrong.
17.

The Respondent has further argued that the Complainant is improperly seeking interim

reliefs that are identical to the final reliefs sought, thereby circumventing the due legal process.
Citing the judgment in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ram Sukhi Devi, AIR 2005 SC 284, the
Respondent asserts that granting final relief at an interim stage is judicially impermissible.
18.

The allegations regarding delayed response to queries, lack of proper communication,

and alleged harassment are wholly denied. It is submitted that the Respondent has always
maintained a transparent and cooperative approach towards the Complainant and other
allottees. The Respondent has responded to queries and clarifications within a reasonable
timeframe and has kept the Complainant informed about the progress of the project through
multiple channels, including WhatsApp updates, site visits, and written communication. The
claims of harassment or intimidation are not only false but are also defamatory in nature and
made with the intent to tarnish the reputation of the Respondent before Authority
19.

The Complainant has not produced any admissible or credible evidence to substantiate

the claims of mental agony, financial strain, or reputational damage. It is submitted that the
Complainant has been aware of the timelines and obligations under the Agreement of Sale, and
any delays or complications, if any, have been explained and communicated in a timely
manner. The Respondent has always acted within the framework of the law and contractual
obligations. The claims under this paragraph are thus speculative and devoid of legal merit.
20.

he Respondent submits that the Complaint filed is a gross abuse of the process of this

Hon’ble Authority and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. The Complainant is
5 of 14

---

The Respondent reiterates that the project is progressing in accordance with the

sanctioned plan and committed timelines, with best efforts being made to mitigate any delays
caused by force majeure events, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The Respondent has
always upheld the interest of allottees and remains committed to completing and delivering the
Schedule Unit/Flat within the agreed timeframe under the Agreement of Sale dated 23rd
August 2023.
22.

It is therefore, prayed that the issues raised in the complaint may kindly be decided in

favor of the Respondent and against the Complainant and may kindly be dismissed with heavy
cost being frivolous and vexatious in the interest of justice and also prayed to pass such orders
as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
D. Rejoinder
23.
At the outset, the Complainant submits that the averments and allegations made in the
Reply filed by the Respondent are false, misleading, and bereft of legal and factual merit. The
contents of the said Reply are denied in toto except to the extent expressly admitted herein. The
Complainant further submits that the Counter is a mere attempt to divert the attention of this
Hon’ble Authority from the core issue of delay in completion of the project and failure to fulfil
binding commitments made under the MoU dated 27.02.2020. The Respondent is put to strict
proof of all averments that are not admitted herein.
24.

The Complainant denies that the Respondent is a reputed or time-bound developer. The

Complainant has no personal knowledge of the alleged credentials or track record of the
Respondent, and puts the Respondent to strict proof thereof.
25.

The Complainant admits the contents of Para 3 of the Reply to the limited extent that

the Respondent is the developer of the project “TBC Rasagna North,” and that the land and
location particulars as mentioned therein are correct.
26.

The Complainant also admits regarding the execution of the MoU dated 27.02.2020 for

purchase of Flat No. 510 in Block-B of the project.
27.

the Complainant vehemently denies the averment that he signed any Agreement of Sale.

It is submitted that the said Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2023 was unilaterally executed and
signed only by the Respondent, without the consent or signature of the Complainant. As such,
6 of 14

---

The Complainant submits that although the Respondent may assert that the possession

was agreed to be delivered by December 2024, such date is not binding on the Complainant in
view of the fact that he never signed the said Agreement of Sale. Moreover, even assuming
arguendo that such date is accepted, the Respondent is nowhere close to completing Block-B of
the project and is in no position to deliver possession within the next few weeks.
29.

The Complainant submits that he has already made payments totaling ₹30,00,000/–,

including ₹5,00,000/– paid on 04.07.2024, in accordance with the payment milestones under
the MoU dated 27.02.2020. The Complainant has fully honoured his obligations under the
MoU. The Respondent’s attempt to impose an unsigned Agreement of Sale is not only contrary
to the facts but also violative of Section 13(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016.
30.

The Complainant strongly denies the claim that he is in default. The Respondent has not

completed the 8th Floor Slab in Block-B, and as per the MoU, the next milestone-linked
payment would be due only after such completion. Thus, no payment is due or pending from
the Complainant.
31.

The Complainant further submits that the statements made in Paras 12 and 13 of the

Reply, accusing the Complainant of mala fides and approaching this Hon’ble Authority with
unclean hands, are baseless and intended to mislead. The Respondent’s reliance on an unsigned
document (Agreement of Sale) as the basis for such accusations is legally untenable.
32.

The Complainant states that the Complaint is not premature. Even as per the

Respondent’s own admission, possession was to be delivered by December 2024, and as of the
date of this rejoinder, it is abundantly clear that such delivery is impossible given the stage of
construction in Block-B. The brickwork is yet to be completed, which establishes delay beyond
any reasonable doubt.
33.

The Complainant submits that the GHMC permission relied upon by the Respondent

was originally granted on 15.02.2020 under Permit No. 1/C25/02247/2020. The Respondent’s
assertion that the permission was granted on 04.05.2021 is incorrect. The latter date only
reflects a modified sanction. Accordingly, as per the MoU, the possession ought to have been
delivered by 15.08.2023 (36 months + 6 months grace), which has long since lapsed.
34.

The Complainant reiterates that the Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2023 was never

signed by him and cannot be used to enforce obligations against him. All payments have been
made as per the MoU, and there is no outstanding liability.
7 of 14

---

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has deliberately filed images of Block-A,

which is not the subject matter of the present complaint. The Respondent may kindly be
directed to file dated and verifiable photographs of Block-B to demonstrate the true status of
the unit in question. The attempt to project progress in Block-A as applicable to the
Complainant’s flat is a deceptive tactic.
36.

The Complainant further submits that, in violation of Section 13(1) of the RERA Act,

the Respondent has collected an amount exceeding 10% of the cost of the unit without
execution of a valid and signed Agreement of Sale. This alone constitutes a statutory violation
entitling the Complainant to relief, including refund with interest.
37.

Therefore, the complainant prayed before the Authority to allow the complaint by

directing the Respondent to compensate for the delay caused in completion of the project and
refund the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- along with 24% interest per anum.
E. Points for Consideration

38.

Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the pleadings, the material placed on

record, and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both parties, the following
points arise for determination before this Authority:
1. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the Complaint, and if
so, to what extent?
2. Whether the Respondent has contravened any provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016
F. Observations of the Authority
39.

The present Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016, wherein the Complainant seeks a refund of the amount paid
towards the subject unit, invoking Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, on the ground of
delay in handing over possession. The Complainant has also unequivocally stated his intention
to withdraw from the Project.
40.

The Respondent opposes the claim by primarily invoking force majeure, citing the

adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Respondent has further contended that the
Complainant failed to adhere to the agreed payment schedule, thereby disrupting the financial
structuring and contributing to the delay in execution.
41.

Upon perusal of the record, this Authority notes that the parties had executed a

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 27.02.2020, under which the Respondent
8 of 14

---

As per the sanctioned records, the building permit was obtained on 04.05.2021.

Accordingly, the outer date for delivery of possession, including the grace period, would be
04.11.2023.
43.

Insofar as the Respondent's reliance on the Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2023 is

concerned, this Authority notes that the said agreement has been signed only by the Respondent
and not by the Complainant. The Complainant has denied execution of the said document.
Therefore, in the absence of mutual execution, the Agreement of Sale lacks enforceability and
cannot be relied upon to determine possession timelines or revised consideration.
Consequently, the Authority places reliance upon the mutually executed MoU dated
27.02.2020, which is a valid and binding document establishing the possession timeline.
44.

At this juncture, the Authority deems it appropriate to address the applicability of the

COVID-19 moratorium. The Respondent has relied upon force majeure owing to the pandemic,
whereas the Complainant disputes such reliance. It is pertinent to note that Telangana RERA
has, in prior cases, held that where agreements were executed in December 2020, 2021, or
thereafter, with the allottees entering into the contract with full knowledge of the prevailing
pandemic situation and extended timelines, the benefit of moratorium could not be
subsequently invoked to defeat the agreed possession dates.
45.

However, the facts of the present case stand on a distinct footing. The MoU between the

parties was executed on 27.02.2020, immediately prior to the onset of the pandemic and before
the imposition of nationwide lockdowns. Thus, the Complainant could not have foreseen the
disruptive impact of COVID-19 at the time of execution. Accordingly, unlike the later
agreements scrutinized in previous orders, the present MoU warrants the application of the
statutory moratorium granted by this Authority vide circulars:
i.
ii.
iii.

15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Circular No. 14 dated 13.05.2020),
15.09.2020 to 15.03.2021 (Order No. 15 dated 29.09.2020),
15.03.2021 to 14.09.2021 (Order No. 16 dated 01.06.2021)

Therefore, the Respondent is entitled to the benefit of an 18-month extension on the
possession timeline. Consequently, the possession date is revised to 04.05.2025, factoring both
the MoU commitment and the moratorium.

9 of 14

---

The Respondent has also attributed delay to the alleged non-adherence to the payment

schedule by the Complainant. The record reflects that the Complainant has paid ₹30,00,000/out of the total consideration of ₹48,38,400/-. As per the MoU dated 27.02.2020, the schedule
of payment was linked to construction milestones. However, following the COVID-19
moratorium and the consequent extension of timelines, no revised payment schedule was ever
mutually agreed between the parties. The only such schedule is found in the unexecuted
Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2023, which lacks binding effect. Therefore, the argument of
delayed payment as per the said Agreement of Sale is devoid of contractual backing and cannot
be sustained.
47.

Further Respondent stands regarding there has been also delay in the project due to the

non-payment of the Complainant stands rejected. This Authority notes that in large-scale
construction projects, the delayed payment of a single allottee particularly in the absence of a
binding payment schedule cannot reasonably be cited as a cause for delay of the entire project.
Such an assertion is untenable.
48.

Further the Complainant has also raised objections regarding an alleged increase in the

total sale consideration as reflected in the draft Agreement of Sale. However, the Authority
finds no evidence of any contemporaneous protest or formal objection raised by the
Complainant to such revision. More importantly, the Agreement of Sale remains unsigned by
the Complainant, and hence, carries no legal sanctity and cannot be enforced.
49.

That being said, this Authority deems it appropriate to clarify that as per the mutually

executed MoU dated 27.02.2020, the parties had agreed upon a total sale consideration of
₹43,38,400/-, out of which ₹15,00,000/- had already been paid by the Complainant at the time
of execution of the MoU. The MoU explicitly records the balance payable as ₹33,38,400/-,
thereby clearly indicating the total consideration figure. The draft Agreement of Sale dated
23.08.2023, though not executed, mentions a revised total consideration of ₹40,32,000/(exclusive of registration charges) which is lower than the MoU amount. In view of this, the
Authority finds no merit in the Complainant’s contention that he refrained from executing the
agreement or lost trust due to an increase in price. On the contrary, the consideration mentioned
in the draft agreement was less than what was originally agreed in the MoU, and therefore, the
plea of price escalation as a reason for non-execution is factually and legally untenable.
50.

It is evident that the project remains incomplete even as the revised outer timeline for

possession, inclusive of the COVID-19 moratorium i.e., 04.05.2025. While the Respondent has
submitted photographs of the subject unit and claimed that the flat is ready, there is no
documentary evidence to substantiate that the unit is in a habitable condition. Notably, the
10 of 14

---

Moreover, communications exchanged between the parties, including WhatsApp

messages and email correspondence, reflect mutual defaults on the part of the Complainant in
partial and delayed payments, and on the part of the Respondent in delayed construction and
non-execution of a binding agreement of sale. However, under the provisions of the RE(R&D)
Act, the burden of statutory compliance is significantly higher on the Promoter, who is dutybound to ensure timely possession and adherence to contractual obligations
52.

The Respondent cannot indefinitely delay possession while relying on an unsigned

agreement or unsubstantiated claims of payment default. It is pertinent to note that the COVID19 moratorium applied equally to both parties. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the
Respondent to draw up and communicate a revised payment schedule linked to the extended
construction timeline. In the absence of such revision, the Respondent cannot validly attribute
delay to the Complainant. The advantage of the moratorium cannot operate solely in favour of
the promoter so as to indefinitely extend construction, while simultaneously expecting the
Complainant to adhere to an unworkable payment plan. As the project is still under
construction and possession has not been lawfully offered even by 04.05.2025, nor has an
occupancy certificate been obtained, the Complainant’s decision to withdraw from the project
stands justified.
53.

In light of the above, the Complainant is entitled to invoke Section 18(1)(a) of the

RE(R&D) Act and seek refund of the amounts paid, along with interest as per Rule 15 of the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. i.e current Highest marginal
cost of State Bank of India (9%) plus 2% that is 11% per annum, calculated from the
05.05.2025 until the date of actual realization. This refund along with interest shall be
completed within 30 days from the date of this order.
54.

However, since the COVID-19 moratorium is applicable in the present case, interest

shall accrue only from 05.05.2025 onwards, and not prior, as the extended timeline provided
relief to the promoter. Further, as the Complainant has denied reliance on the Agreement of
Sale dated 23.08.2023, and the same remains unsigned, the Authority cannot consider the
possession date mentioned therein. The only enforceable timeline is that stipulated in the
11 of 14

---

This Authority notes that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the

Complainant and the Respondent is dated 27.02.2020, whereas the Respondent obtained RERA
registration only on 24.08.2020, vide Registration No. P02200002100. The MoU itself
expressly acknowledges that statutory approvals from competent authorities were not obtained
as on the date of its execution.
56.

Under Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a

statutory bar is imposed, which reads as follows:
"No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase
in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or
part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority established under this Act.

57.

The legislative intent of Section 3 is to ensure that no pre-launch, marketing, or sale

activity is undertaken prior to registration of the project, thereby safeguarding the interests of
homebuyers and ensuring regulatory oversight.
58.

In the present case, the sequence of events clearly reveals a violation of this statutory

mandate. The Respondent entered into a financial arrangement with the Complainant under a
MoU well before obtaining RERA registration thus engaging in pre-launch activity in
contravention of Section 3 of the Act. This Authority, therefore, holds that the Respondent is in
violation of Section 3 by marketing and executing the MoU prior to project registration.Section
13 of the RE(R&D) Act read as:
59.

Further, the Complainant has also alleged that the Respondent collected an amount

exceeding 10% of the unit cost without executing a registered agreement for sale, thereby
attracting Section 13(1) of the RE(R&D) Act. The MoU dated 27.02.2020 records that the
Complainant paid an amount of ₹15,00,000/- at the time of execution, and subsequently,
another ₹15,00,000/-, aggregating to ₹30,00,000/-. The total sale consideration as per the MoU
is ₹43,38,400/-. Thus, the Respondent has collected well over 10% of the unit cost without
executing a registered agreement for sale.
60.

Section 13(1) of the RE(R&D) Act mandates as under:
12 of 14

---

It is evident that the Respondent failed to execute or register any such agreement with

the Complainant despite receiving more than 10% of the consideration. The Agreement of Sale
subsequently prepared in 2023 remained unexecuted, and therefore, cannot be relied upon to
cure the earlier statutory infraction.
62.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Respondent is also in clear violation of

Section 13(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, for having collected more than 10% of the
consideration amount without executing and registering a written agreement for sale.
Point 2 answered accordingly.
G. Directions of the Authority:
63.

In view of the foregoing findings and in exercise of the powers conferred under the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Authority issues the following directions:
1. In view of the findings under Section 18(1)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, the Respondent is directed to refund the total amount of
₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) received from the Complainant towards the
subject unit.
2. The refund shall be made along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum (i.e., the
current highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) of the State Bank of India at
9% + 2% as prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017). Interest shall accrue from 05.05.2025 (being the revised
possession date after accounting for the COVID-19 moratorium), and shall continue
until the date of actual realization/refund.
3. Further, it is observed that, notwithstanding the fact that the concerned project is
registered under TG RERA, the Respondent herein has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Complainant and collected amounts under the guise of a
“pre-launch offer.” Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,

13 of 14

---

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.
65.

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

14 of 14

---