Order Complaint No.1674 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.1674 OF 2023
30th Day of March, 2024

Corum:

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

Dr. N. Saraswathi
representing Ms. Thota Kiran Mayee,
through SPA dated 23.11.2023

…Complainant

Versus

Sri K. Ramesh

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
27.02.2024 before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person and
its Counsel, Sri N. C. Pavan Kumar and Counsels for the Respondent, Sri
Nyayapathi Prashanth, Sri C. Vinayak Rao, Sri S. Janamejai and Smt. Adeeba and
upon hearing the arguments of both parties, this Authority passes the following
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 “Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
1

Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) requesting
appropriate action against the Respondent Builder.
A. Brief facts on behalf of the Complainant:
3.

The Complainant is representing her daughter, Ms. Thota Kiran Mayee

through SPA dated 23.11.2023. That the Complainant purchased a Flat bearing
No.503 in 5th floor, Annapurna Apartment, Kothapet, Hyderabad for a total
consideration of Rs.73,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Three Lakhs Only) which, as
promised by the Respondent Builder, includes amenities and an exclusive car
parking, lift, 24 hours power diesel generator back-up, ground and municipal
water, three phase power supply, transformer etc.
4.

That, consequently, the Complainant’s daughter entered into a Sale

Agreement with the Respondent Builder on 28.07.2022. That in the said Sale
Agreement, she has paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only)
to the Respondent Builder as an advance payment towards purchase confirmation
of the said Flat, the receipt of which Respondent Builder readily admitted and
acknowledged.
5.

The Complainant submitted that the balance amount of Rs.58,00,000/-

(Rupees

Fifty-Eight

Lakhs

Only)

out

of

the

total

sale

Consideration

of

Rs.73,00,000/- was subsequently paid and the Respondent Builder accordingly
executed a registered Sale Deed at SRO Uppal vide Sale deed No. 17262 of 2022
dated 09.11.2022.
6.

She submitted that her daughter and herself shifted to the said Flat on

21.12.2022, and faced many problems with the Flat, as there was no proper
Housing Association. That the amenities which was promised by the Respondent
Builder at the time of Purchase of the flat were not provided. That whenever, the
2

Complainant approached the Respondent Builder to address the issues, there was
no proper response.
7.

That the Complainant recently came to know that there were many

deviations made by the Respondent Builder and that he has not constructed the
apartment as per the Approved Plan, of GHMC and deviated, and that therefore
GHMC has rejected to issue Occupancy Certificate. That, due to the negligent act of
the Respondent Builder, the Complainant suffered and, even after repeatedly
addressing the issues, Respondent Builder did not cooperate.
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant prayed that stringent action be taken against

the

Respondent

Builder

for

his

negligent

behavior

and

compensate

the

Complainant with damages in the interest justice.
B. Reply on behalf of the Respondent:
9.

Vide Reply dated 15.02.2024, the Respondent Builder submitted that the

Complainant is not having any locus standi as she is not the "allottee" as defined
under section 2 (d) read with Section 31(1) of the Act, 2016. Admittedly the
complainant is not the allottee or the aggrieved person and her elder daughter Ms.
Thota Asha Kiran Mayee is the allottee of the Flat No. 503.
10.

He submitted that the allegation of the Complainant stating that her elder

daughter has entered into an agreement with the Respondent on 28.07.2022 is
true and further allegation with regard to complying of all conditions by the
Complainant's daughter is denied by the Respondent as she has not complied the
total payment condition.

3

11.

That the Respondent has obtained permission for the construction of

Ground + Upper 5 floors. Respondent has started the construction in accordance
with the plan sanctioned by the GHMC. That while the construction was in
progress some persons claiming to be the Commercial Taxes Colony Welfare
Association represented by its Secretary and other office bearers more particularly
one Mr. Anjaiah Goud along with Secretary, Mr. Ravinder and some persons
claiming to be the colony persons who have tried to interfere in the construction
activity and made illegal demands.
12.

He submitted that there is a small temple beside the western side wall of the

Apartment. In furtherance of their illegal demands, they have started the
construction of compound wall in the first week of March 2021 and dumped the
construction material at the site for which the Respondent has objected.
13.

That unable to withstand the illegal activities of the said persons, the

Respondent was constrained to lodge a complaint with the GHMC Officials on
12.03.2021 thereby requesting to remove the said illegal construction of compound
wall but for the reasons best known to the officials they have not initiated any
action on the complaint of the Respondent herein. As such the Respondent was
constrained to file a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.6738 of 2021. The Hon'ble High
Court was pleased to pass orders thereby directing the GHMC officials to consider
the complaint of this Respondent dated 12.03.2021 and take necessary action and
see that the encroachments if any are removed from the footpath.
14.

The Respondent submitted that the officials of the GHMC have earlier

interfered in the day-to-day construction of this Respondent. To contain the ill
motives of the GHMC Officials, the Respondent filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.
20271 of 2021, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the GHMC

4

Officials not to interfere in the day-to-day construction Respondent in I.A.No. 1 of
2021 in W.P.No. 20271 of 2021.
15.

He submitted that the GHMC Deputy Commissioner for Saroornagar has

earlier issued notice under section 452 (1) & 461 (1) OF HMC Act, 1955 vide notice
No. UC 561 Dated 31.07.2021 to this Respondent thereby alleging certain
deviations in the construction. He added that the said deviations are very negligible
and minute which does not warrant any harsh action from the officials.
16.

That as the W.P No. 6738 of 2021 was pending, the Occupancy Certificate

was rejected though there were minor and negligible deviations which are below
10% of the total constructed area and are allowed as per G.O.Ms.168. However, on
the advice and direction of the officials of the GHMC said Writ Petition was
withdrawn and this Respondent is in the process of applying the Occupancy
Certificate after complying the deficiencies which were pointed out by the Officials
of the GHMC.
17.

The Respondent also submitted that he has already filed an application for

registration before this Hon'ble Authority vide No.REA02200036739 and the same
is pending. He also added that most of the allegations are with regard to internal
problems which are nothing to do with this Respondent, and that there are no
problems in the apartment and all the apartment owners have issued satisfactory
letter in token of appreciation of the works carried out by this Respondent. He
submitted that in the said letter the complainant's daughter i.e., Ms. Thota Asha
Kiran Mayee had also signed as one of the signatories.
18.

The Respondent submitted that in total the Complainant's daughter is due

an amount of Rs. 14,25,000 (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Only)
and that the Complainant's daughter has executed two demand promissory notes

5

in favour of the Respondent herein. And therefore, he prayed to dismiss the
complaint with exemplary costs.
C. Rejoinder by the Complainant
19.

Vide Rejoinder dated 27.02.2024, while reiterating the contents of the

Complaint,

submitted

that

the

Respondent

wrongly

concluded

that

the

Complainant does not have any locus standi, as she is not the "allotee", as defined
under Section 2(d) read with Section 31(1).
20.

She submitted that, due to non-issuance of Occupancy Certificate by the

GHMC, she incurred excess electricity charges and house taxes. That further, the
office bearers of the unregistered Housing Association, are acting as per the whims
and fancies of the Respondent Builder and collecting maintenance amount from the
Complainant without detailing the accounts and expenditures incurred for the
maintenance of the building.
21.

She further submitted that the proceedings of W.P. No.6738 of 2021 and

W.P.No.20271 of 2021 and the orders passed in the said matters are irrelevant to
the present case. She added that the Respondent is misleading this Authority
stating that there is only below 10% deviation of the total constructed area and that
the same is allowed as per G.O.Ms.168.
22.

She submitted that GHMC issued a Show Cause Notice bearing File

No.3/UC/C5/LBNZ/GHMC/2024 dated 07.02.2024 to the Respondent, that you
are presently proceeding with the unauthorized construction of watchman room
without taking prior permission from GHMC and that in reply to the said notice,
the Respondent created a satisfaction letter, and forged the consent signature of
Miss. Thota Kiran Mayee.

6

23.

She denied that the Respondent extended loan the Complainant on

humanitarian grounds. She added that the Complainant is also paying to the
Respondent, without any default till date.
D. Observations and Directions of the Authority
24.

The first point to consider is whether the Project is within the purview of

this Authority. In this regard, it is observed that the plot area on which the
Apartment is situated is only 483.28 sq mts which is less than 500 sq mts as
required under Section 3(2). However, as seen from GHMC approval proceedings
vide permit No.2/C5/13063/2020 dated 28.12.2020, the number of 5 upper floors
are permitted and the units are more than 8. Hence, the Project is within the
purview of RERA.
25.

The Respondent submits that he has applied for registration of the Project

vide Application No. REA02200036739 on 20.11.2021, and that the same is
pending. During the course of arguments, the Respondent submitted that as the
Application was made and this Authority did not register within the stipulated
time, as per Section 5(2), the Project is deemed to be registered. This argument of
the Respondent is rejected at the onset, as this Authority, after duly considering
the application made by the Respondent raised objections/shortfalls to the
application of registration which have not been met by the Respondent till date for
the reasons best known to the Respondent. Further, admittedly, the Agreement of
Sale with the Complainant was executed on 28.07.2022, without having RERA
registration, and therefore, it is clear that the Respondent has violated Section 3 of
the Act, 2016. And therefore, this Authority, while exercising its powers under
Section 38 read with Section 59, deems it fit to impose a penalty of Rs. 6,80,137/(Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Thousand One Hundred and Thirty-Seven Only) upon the
Respondent herein for abject violation of Section 3 as has been discussed above.
7

The Respondent is directed to pay the penalty within 30 days in favour of TS RERA
FUNDS through Demand Draft or online payment to A/c No.50100595798191,
HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036.
26.

Now, as regards whether the Complainant has locus to file the present case,

this Authority observes that the Complainant has filed an SPA dated 23.11.2023
which has been filed on record. A perusal of Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney
Act, 1882 makes it clear that any person can execute a power of attorney in favor of
another person for a specified purpose and in the present case, the daughter of the
Complainant has executed an SPA in favor of the Complainant, which is not barred
by law. Therefore, the Complainant, filing the present Complaint through the SPA
dated 23.11.2023 representing the daughter who is the allottee in the said Project
shall be considered as an allottee and an aggrieved person as defined under Section
2(d), 2(zg)(i) read with Section 31(1) of the Act, 2016.
27.

With regard to the reliefs, it is observed that the Complainant failed to

elaborate the specific relief sought for before this Authority. The Complainant prays
that stringent action be taken against the Respondent but does not specify the
demarcated reliefs which this Authority can grant. However, considering the facts
and circumstances, and keeping in mind the interests and the welfare of the
allottees of the Project, this Authority, while exercising its powers under Section 37,
deems it fit to pass the following directions:
a. Respondent is directed to clear the shortfalls in its RERA application vide
No.REA02200036739 and complete the RERA registration within 30 days;
b. Upon perusal of the rejection letter from GHMC, it is observed that the
Occupancy Certificate has been rejected on the ground that road widening
portion has not been handed over to the local body. Hence, the Respondent

8

Builder is directed to obtain Occupancy Certificate duly fulfilling the
requirements in the GHMC rejection letter within 60 days;
c. As per the Complainant, during her oral submissions, it is mentioned that
the overhead water tank has not been constructed to the capacity as
required asper occupancy. Therefore, if any shortfall is noticed, additional
water tank has to be provided by the Respondent Builder within 60 days.
28.

In lieu thereof, the present complaint stands disposed of. Parties are

informed that non-compliance with this Order shall attract penalty under Section
63 of the Act, 2016.
29.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate

Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Dt.11-01-2018, the Telangana State Value
Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act till the regular Tribunal is established)
as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon'ble Chairperson,
TS RERA

9