Order Complaint No.213 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Quorum:

10th day of July 2025
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member

COMPLAINT NO.183 OF 2024
K. Randheer Reddy
(R/o Villa no.380, Road no.7, Kavuri Forest Nest, Lemoor Road, Thukkuguda, R.R.District – 501359)

…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)
2. Kavuri Forest Nest Villa Oweners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-operative Society
(Rep by its President, M.Prabhakar Reddy, club house, Kavuri Forest Nest Villas, Lemoor
Road, Tukkuguda, Hyderabad- 501395)
…..Respondent(s)
COMPLAINT NO.184 OF 2024
Saidi Reddy Keshi Reddy
(R/o Villa no.280, Road no.7, Kavuri Forest Nest, Lemoor Road, Thukkuguda, R.R.District – 501359
…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)
…..Respondent(s)
COMPLAINT NO.185 OF 2024
B. Vijay Bhaskar
(R/o Villa no.277, Road no.7, Kavuri Forest Nest, Lemoor Road, Thukkuguda, R.R.District – 501359)

…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)

…..Respondent(s)
COMPLAINT NO.186 OF 2024
K. Vijendra Reddy
1 of 25

---

…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)

…..Respondent(s)
COMPLAINT NO.211 OF 2024
Dilip Kumar Jammu
(R/o Villa no.156, Road no.7, Kavuri Forest Nest, Lemoor Road, Thukkuguda, R.R.District – 501359)

…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)

…..Respondent(s)
COMPLAINT NO.212 OF 2024
Anwar Shareef Shaik
(R/o Villa no.101, Road no.7, Kavuri Forest Nest, Lemoor Road, Thukkuguda, R.R.District – 501359)

…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)

…..Respondent(s)
COMPLAINT NO.213 OF 2024
CVS Ramakrishna
(R/o Villa no.100 Road no.7, Kavuri Forest Nest, Lemoor Road, Thukkuguda, R.R.District – 501359)

…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)

…..Respondent(s)
COMPLAINT NO.214 OF 2024
Apoorva Banda
2 of 25

---

…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)

…..Respondent(s)
COMPLAINT NO.283 OF 2024
M.K Harika
(R/o Villa no.356, Road no.7, Kavuri Forest Nest, Lemoor Road, Thukkuguda, R.R.District – 501359)

…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)

…..Respondent(s)
COMPLAINT NO.284 OF 2024
Sashanka Balaram Maturu
(R/o Villa no.315, Road no.7, Kavuri Forest Nest, Lemoor Road, Thukkuguda, R.R.District – 501359)

…..Complainant

Versus
1. Kavuri Ravi Kumar
(Supreme Enclave, Plot No.05, Kavuri Hills, P.o Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500003)
…..Respondent(s)
The present matter was taken up for hearing on 26.06.2025 before this Authority. Learned
counsel Sri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy appeared on behalf of the Complainants; Sri M.V. Pratap
Kumar appeared for Respondent No.1; and Sri N. Krishna Sumanth appeared for Respondent
No.2 in Complaint No.183 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.2"). Upon
hearing the submissions advanced by all parties and perusing the material available on record,
this Authority proceeds to pass the following Order:
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

3 of 25

---

A. Brief Facts of the Case, as Stated by the Complainant
3.

The present matter pertains to a group of ten individual complainants, all of whom are

property owners in the residential layout project known as “Kavuri Forest Nest,” situated at
Tukkuguda, Hyderabad, Telangana. The said project was developed and promoted by the
Respondent herein.
4.

Each of the Complainants has executed a registered Agreement of Sale (hereinafter

referred to as “AOS”) with the Respondent, pursuant to which they purchased their respective
residential units (villas) within the said project. The terms and conditions of the AOS uniformly
stipulate various obligations on the part of the Respondent, including but not limited to, the
maintenance and management of common areas and facilities for a continuous period of five
years from the date of handover.
5.

As per Clause 13(b) of the said AOS, the Respondent undertook to maintain the

common areas and provide essential services for a fixed fee of Rs. 50/- per square foot for a
period of five years. It was contractually agreed that no additional maintenance charges would
be levied on the allottees during this stipulated period.
6.

However, the Complainants submit that since June 2024, the Respondent has drastically

curtailed or ceased essential maintenance services while simultaneously demanding additional
charges in violation of the AOS. It is alleged that the Respondent’s failure to uphold its
contractual commitments has resulted in the deterioration of the quality of life within the
project. Specific grievances highlighted include:
a.

Discontinuation of road sweeping services.

b.

Negligence in garden maintenance, leading to unkempt vegetation, overgrowth, and the
emergence of venomous snakes within the premises.

c.

Inadequate security arrangements, with only 6 guards deployed across the entire 50-acre
layout, grossly insufficient for a community of such scale.

d.

Non-functioning of clubhouse and swimming pool facilities due to the removal of
associated maintenance staff.

e.

Erratic operation of the STP (Sewage Treatment Plant) and water supply systems.

f.

Lack of upkeep of gym and indoor/outdoor recreational facilities, despite having paid
for such amenities under the agreed maintenance fee.

4 of 25

---

It is further contended that the Respondent engaged in misrepresentation at the time of

marketing the project by branding it as a “gated community.” However, the Complainants bring
on record that on 22.04.2024, the municipal authorities issued a formal notice directing the
removal of entry gates on the ground that the requisite permissions for the same were never
obtained. This is alleged to be a material misrepresentation, leading the Complainants to enter
into agreements based on a false premise.
8.

The Complainants also point to deficiencies in infrastructure works, most notably with

respect to electrical cabling. It is submitted that the Respondent laid underground electrical
cables without adhering to standard safety protocols, resulting in frequent short circuits and
power outages. Villa #380, in particular, has reportedly suffered repeated disconnections and
power failures, causing professional disruptions and mental harassment to the allottee.
9.

Instances of seepage and water leakage within Villa #380 are also brought on record,

with such issues allegedly affecting multiple rooms including the living area and bedrooms,
thereby causing damage to property and structural integrity.
10.

The Complainants further allege that the Respondent has unilaterally altered the

nomenclature of the project, changing the name from “Forest Nest” to “Kavuri Hills Forest
Nest” without prior consent or intimation to the residents, and without seeking any statutory
approvals for such name change. This unilateral action is asserted to be in breach of the AOS
and prejudicial to the identity of the community.
11.

With respect to solar energy generation, the Complainants aver that each villa, including

Villa #380, is equipped with a rooftop solar plant (10KW). The Respondent had assured that
once the association of villa owners was formed, the proceeds from solar power generation
would be transferred to the respective owners. Despite the association being formally registered
on 07.02.2024, the Respondent has allegedly failed to make any such payments.
12.

The Complainants also raise the issue of additional charges levied for usage of

clubhouse facilities, notwithstanding that each of them has already paid a one-time membership
fee of Rs. 3,00,000/- plus GST. It is submitted that the understanding at the time of payment
was that no further user charges would be demanded for using the gym, swimming pool, and
other amenities.

B. Relief(s) sought:
13.

In view of the above, the Complainants have approached this Authority seeking

redressal on the following grounds:

5 of 25

---

C. Respondent 1 Reply:

14.

It is submitted that the Respondent Company is in the business of real estate,

construction and development since the year 1999. The Respondent Company has completed
several projects in Telangana, that are fully occupied and being enjoyed by the owners thereof.
The Respondent Company has a long-standing reputation in the market as being a developer of
projects with the highest standards in the market.
15.

At the outset, it is submitted that the averments made by the Complainant in Point No. 4

of Form M of the Complaint are false, baseless, and incorrect. It is submitted that the
Complainant has approached this Hon'ble Forum with unclean hands by suppressing material
facts and documents. It is submitted that such an action on the part of the Complainant indicates
an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Forum, which may not be countenanced by this Hon'ble
Forum.

6 of 25

---

It is submitted that the filing of the present Complaint is an attempt by the Complainant

to prejudice the rights of the Respondent Company, and to affect the amiability between the
Respondent Company and the owners of Kavuri Hills Forest Nest.
17.

It is submitted that the above-mentioned averment is substantiated by the fact that the

Complainants have filed the Complaints in their individual capacity and without any
authorization from the Society. It is pertinent to note that the Complainants herein have made
averments and claimed reliefs in respect of the common areas. Therefore, it is the Society that
has to come forward to claim such reliefs. It is submitted that, this fact alone, evinces that the
Complainants have filed the complaints against the Respondent Company in a mala fide
manner, by not disclosing several material facts, and has mislead this Hon'ble Forum.
18.

It is submitted that the Respondent Company wholly denies the allegations made in the

Complaints as being false, baseless, incorrect and misrepresentation of facts.
19.

It is submitted that the Respondent has not violated any terms of the Agreement of Sale

executed between the Complainants and Respondent. It is submitted that the Respondent
Company has not charged any amounts beyond the Pre- paid Maintenance Charges collected in
accordance with Clause 13 (b) of the Agreement of Sale executed between the Complainant
and the Respondent. It is submitted that all the allegations pertaining to the same are baseless,
vexatious and denied.
20.

It is submitted that the Respondent Company is the developer of the project named

Kavuri's Forest Nest (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), situated at, Maheswaram Mandal,
Saraswathiguda Road, Immaguda, Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 501359.
21.

It is submitted that the Respondent Company has obtained layout permissions for open

plots in the land admeasuring Acres 49-26 Guntas in Survey Nos. 55/1, 55/2, 55/3, and 55/4
situated at Imamguda Village, Maheshwaranav Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,Telangana for
construction of the Project vide draft layout proceedings bearing No. 01/LO/plg/HMDA/2018
dated 27.03.2018. The final layout permission was obtained on 05.02.2019. The Telangana
State Real Estate Regulatory Authority has approval to the Project vide Permit No.
P02400000545 on 27.03.2019.
22.

Thereafter, the Company constructed villas in the said Project by obtaining individual

permissions for each plot where the construction was being made. The permissions were
obtained from the local authority. All the said facts are within the knowledge of the
Complainant and the other purchasers and are mentioned in the Agreements of Sale.
23.

As far as the Complainants are concerned, Building Permit No. 3133/W1/2019/0452

from the Office of the Tukkuguda Municipality was obtained on 22.02.2021. Thereafter, the
7 of 25

---

The Company has obtained final occupancy certificate ("OC") for the Villas.

25.

The Company submits that the Project consists of plots with villas and has a perimeter

wall with security and common amenities and has advertised itself accordingly on its website
and billboards. The Company has developed the layout Project with houses to meet the
requirements of the purchasers. Further, the Complainants were aware of the same and
executed the AoS, the recitals of which clearly state that the Company would develop the
Project "...into a group housing project comprising of individual villas with internal roads,
parks, open spaces, water bodies and club house with all other allied internal and external
services such as water supply system, sewerage etc..."It is also pertinent to note that both the
AoS and Sale Deed executed by the Complainant clearly mention that the initial permissions
for the Project were received from the HMDA and that the Villa would be constructed as per
the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Commissioner of Tukkuguda. Details of the Project's
RERA registration were also provided to the Complainant therein and therefore, the
Complainant had knowledge of the permits obtained by the Company for the Project and Villa.
The Complainants are now raising unfounded and vexatious claims, after having purchased the
Villa with full knowledge and awareness.
26.

It is submitted, in relation to the compound wall, although there was a show cause

notice that was issued by the Tukkuguda Municipality in this regard, the Hon'ble High Court
has issued orders dated 09.05.2024 in W.P. No. 13319 of 2024 directed the Respondent herein
(Petitioner in W.P. No. 13319 of 2024) and Tukkuguda Municipality to maintain status quo
27.

It is submitted that the AoS sets out the terms which have been agreed upon by the

parties in respect of the Common Maintenance, Club house and Amenities. The relevant
portions of the AoS are submitted hereunder.

i. Clause No. 12(a) and 12(b) of the terms of the AoS
Clause No. 12(a) of the AoS sets out that the Developer is developing a club house as a part of the
Project and the Purchaser of the Villas in the Project shall be entitled to make use of the club house
on availability basis and by paying user/subscription charges as may be prescribed by the
Developer or the agency appointed for maintenance of the common areas and facilities in the
Project.
Clause No. 12(b) of the AoS sets out that the Purchaser shall pay Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only) towards club house membership and amenities.
ii. Clause No. 13(b) and (f) of the terms of the AoS
Paragraph No. 13(b) of the AoS sets out that the Purchaser, i.e., the Complainant herein, shall pay
to the Developer a sum of Rs. 50/- per square foot per five years towards Common Maintenance
Charges (hereinafter referred to as the "Pre-paid Maintenance Charges") at the time of handing over

8 of 25

---

28.

It is submitted that, thereafter, the owners of the Project have also formed a society by

the name Kavuri's Forestnest Villas Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co Op Society
(hereinafter referred to as the "Society"). It is submitted that, subsequently, the Respondent
Company has sent an email dated 29.08.2023 to the owners of the Project stating that the
Respondent Company intends to commence the maintenance of the common areas of the
Project (which the Developer has to carry on for duration of 5 years according to the AoS). It is
submitted that the pre-paid maintenance charges have been collected by the owners at the rate
of Rs. 50/- per square foot for a period of 5 years (i.e., Rs. 0.83 per sft per month).
30.

It is submitted that the Respondent Company, on multiple occasions, stated that the

Respondent Company was willing to allocate pre-paid maintenance funds (i.e. 0.83 per sft per
month) to various maintenance activities as per the wishes of the society. It is submitted that,
thereafter, the owners have decided that the pre-paid maintenance charges, which was paid by
the owners in pursuance of Clause 13(b) of the AoS was insufficient for undertaking certain
maintenance activities of the common areas of Project. It is submitted that, however, the
Respondent Company had left it to the discretion of the Society to take a decision on choosing
the most viable option.
31.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that, the Respondent Company has not breached

any terms of the AoS or the Sale Deed. It is submitted that the Respondent Company has
collected only the Pre-paid Maintenance Charges in pursuance of Clause 13(b) of the AoS from
the owners. It is submitted that the Respondent Company has not collected any amount beyond
the proportionate share of Rs. 50/- per square foot for five years, from the owners. The
Respondent is providing the maintenance services that are available within the said price in the
best interests of the project and by optimal utilisation of the funds.
32.

Thereafter the Respondent Company was informed that, on 26.05.2024, a General Body

Meeting (hereinafter referred to as the "GBM") was organized. During the course of the GBM,
it was agreed upon by all the owners and a resolution was passed that the owners shall pay a
sum of Rs. 2.20/- per square foot per month as maintenance charges which amount shall
include the Pre-paid Maintenance Charges of Rs. 0.83/- per square foot per month. It is
submitted that the Respondent is unconcerned with the said resolution and the respondent
9 of 25

---

It is submitted that the society started collecting 1.37/- per sft per month from owners

and proceeded to engage a different maintenance agency (hereinafter referred to as the "Second
Agency") on its own accord. It is to be noted that the second agency is carrying out activities
such as road cleaning and gardening. The second agency had also started swimming pool
maintenance but stopped the same. The reason for stoppage of swimming pool maintenance is
known only to society and the second agency. Additionally, the second agency has deployed an
unknown number of additional security personnel as per the wishes of the society. The society
has been paying the maintenance amount to the Second Agency directly. It is pertinent to note
that, in spite of the above mentioned circumstances, the Respondent Company has been
continuously providing the essential services as well as the maintenance services out of the
initial maintenance charges of Rs. 0.83/- per square foot per month.
34.

While so, it is submitted that, the Executive Committee of the Society started sending

emails to the Respondent Company requiring the Respondent Company to carry on
maintenance works which fell outside the scope of work of the Respondent Company, i.e.,
beyond the Pre-paid Maintenance Charges of Rs. 0.83/- per square foot per month. It is
submitted that, although the Society and the owners have agreed to the new arrangement in the
GBM resolution, a few members of the Executive Society, on misconceived notions, for
reasons best known to them, have addressed emails to the Respondent Company stating that the
Respondent Company was liable to carry out the maintenance works to the extent of Rs. 2.20/per square foot per month whereas differential amount of Rs. 1.37/- per square foot per month
was being collected by the Society. It is submitted that the Respondent Company has addressed
various replies stating that as agreed by all the owners in the GBM and the resolution passed
therein, the maintenance agency engaged by the Respondent Company, in the event of nonpayment of the differential amount to it, is only liable to carry out maintenance works to an
extent of Rs. 0.83/- per square foot per month.
35.

It is further submitted that the Respondent Company reiterated to the Society and the

Executive Committee that the Society has been collecting the amount and paying the same to
the Second Agency for the maintenance of the common areas of the Project, and expecting the
Respondent Company to maintain the common areas of the Project beyond the scope of Rs.
0.83/- per square foot, per month is not justified.
36.

It is also submitted that the Respondent Company has addressed an email to the Society

vide email dated 06.08.2024 requesting the Complainant and the other owners to pay the
10 of 25

---

It is further submitted that the AoS, in Clause 12, stipulates that the Club house and

amenities can be availed by the owners on payment of a subscription fee/user charges which is
exclusive of the common area maintenance charges. It is further submitted that according to
Clause 12 of the AoS, the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be paid towards provision of the
amenities such as tennis courts, basketball courts, cricket facilities, children's play area,
swimming pool, gym equipment, jogging/walking track etc as well as the clubhouse, and the
same is not subject to being returned to the Society. It is submitted that the user charges so paid
by the owners is utilized to defray the costs of maintenance of such amenities facilities. It is
submitted that, however, the user charges have been collected by the Society, and therefore the
Society is responsible to undertake maintenance of the clubhouse and amenities. However, the
Executive Committee has been sending emails to the Respondent Company stating that the
Respondent Company was liable to carry out maintenance of the amenities, when the user
charges are being enjoyed by the Society.25. It is submitted that the Respondent Company has
been providing all maintenance services from the Pre-paid Maintenance Charges collected by
it. It is submitted that the Respondent Company has, on numerous occasions, in good faith,
provided services which were beyond the scope of the Pre-paid Maintenance Charges.
38.

The complaints are denied as being misconceived, incorrect and baseless and the

Complainants are put to strict proof of the same. The averments regarding the particulars of the
Complainants are formal in nature and not traversed. The averments that as per the Agreement
of Sale, Para 13(b), the Respondent agreed to maintain the community for five years, during
which the purchaser is required to pay the proportionate share of Rs. 50/- per square foot for
five years (which is Rs. 0.83/- per square foot per month) towards Common Maintenance
Charges is misconceived and denied and the reliance placed on the same is misconceived. The
averments that the Respondent assured that no additional maintenance charges would be
required during this five-year period is misconceived and denied. The averments that the
Respondent is now demanding an additional amount to maintain the community and that from
June 1, 2024, the standard of maintenance has significantly declined are all misconceived,
incorrect and denied.
39.

It is submitted that Respondent Company has only agreed to maintain the community in

accordance with the terms of the AoS. It is submitted that the decision to increase the
11 of 25

---

That the Respondent is not properly maintaining the community by stopping road

sweeping, and that the Respondent has stopped garden maintenance and that poisonous snakes
are residing in the bushes, clubhouse and swimming pool are closed due to the removal of the
service and maintenance personnel are all misconceived, incorrect and denied. It is submitted
that the averments the housekeeping staff for the clubhouse has also been removed resulting in
no cleaning services for the clubhouse is misconceived, incorrect and denied. The averments
that only 3 guards are being provided during the day and 3 guards at night for the entire
community which is insufficient and does not fulfil the promised security standards is
misconceived, incorrect and denied.
41.

It is submitted that the Respondent Company, through the maintenance agency engaged

by it, is responsible to carry out maintenance works only to the extent of the Pre-paid
Maintenance Charges and nothing more. Accordingly, the Respondent Company has been
providing the services to that extent. It is submitted that when the maintenance amount is being
collected by the Society itself for maintenance of the common areas as claimed in the
Complaint, the claims that the Respondent Company is liable to for such maintenance is
misconceived, vexatious, unfounded and cannot sustain. It is further submitted that there are no
standards or number of security guards, that have been agree upon by the parties in respect of
the security facilities, and the Respondent Company has been providing security guards in
accordance with the terms of the AoS.
42.

The Respondent Company has marketed the Project as a gated community and that the

local municipal authorities issue a notice for the removal of gates as the Respondent did not
obtain necessary permissions for a gated community, and that the Respondent Company has
misled the purchasers is misconceived, incorrect and denied. It is submitted that the Project
consists of plots with villas and has a perimeter wall with security and common amenities and
has advertise itself accordingly on its website and billboards. It is submitted, although there was
a show cause notice that was issued by the Tukkuguda Municipality in this regard, the Hon'ble
12 of 25

---

That the laying of electrical cables does not meet safety standards and that the

Respondent laid the cables directly in the earth without taking any safety precautions, leading
to multiple short circuits are misconceived, incorrect and denied.
44.

That the Respondent charged Rs. 3,00,000+ 18% GST per villa for clubhouse

membership and that the Respondent is now demanding extra user charges for the gym,
swimming pool, workspace and games, and that the clubhouse membership amount is not being
transferred to the association are all misconceived, incorrect and denied. It is submitted that, as
far as the Common Maintenance Charges are concerned, the Respondent Company has only
collected the Pre-paid Maintenance Amount according to the AoS. It is submitted that, as per
the terms of the AoS, the Respondent Company has collected the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/towards provision of the amenities such as tennis courts, basketball courts, cricket facilities,
children's play area, swimming pool, gym equipment, jogging/walking track etc., as well as the
clubhouse, and the same amount is not subject to refund, and the AoS also does not
contemplate any clause to that extent. It is further submitted that the club house user charges
are distinct from the membership fee and the same is being collected and being enjoyed by the
Society.
45.

That the Respondent Company has unilaterally changed the project name from

"Kavuri's Forest Nest" to "Kavuri Hills Forest Nest" without proper permission is
misconceived. It is submitted that, as of today the name of the Project is Forest Nest, and the
Respondent Company has only affixed the logo of the Company consisting of the words Kavuri
Hills, above the name of the Project It is submitted that, the Respondent Company has also
given the option of removing the logo to the owners.
46.

That the Respondent has promise to payback the Solar energy generated from the

Complainant's Rooftop Solar Plant tha has 10kw after the formation of the Community Society
is misconceived, incorrect an denied. The averment that the Society has got registered on
07.022024hspo Patter of and not traversed. The averments that, upon questioning the
Respondent about the payment of generated Solar Energy units recorded in the meter has never
reverted any information about the payment are all misconceived, incorrect and denied. It is
submitted that there is no agreement or any clause in the AoS or the Sale Deed which provides
for reimbursement of solar energy units.

13 of 25

---

That Villas are experiencing widespread water leakage issues, affecting multiple areas

including the living room, children's bedroom guest bedroom, ground floor bedroom and other
parts of the property are misconceived, incorrect and denied. It is submitted that the said
leakages in Villas are only due to the internal modifications and changes undertaken by the
Complainants after the completion of handover. Therefore, it is submitted that alleging that the
leakages are attributable to the construction by the Respondent is incorrect and wholly denied.
48.

That frequent power outages are occurring at Villas, leading to repeated disconnection

and that each time the Complainant is forced to manually reset the meter by turning on the
tripped switch are misconceived and denied. The averments that these ongoing disruptions are
impacting professional obligations and productivity are misconceived and denied. It is
submitted that the averments regarding the power outages are incorrect in as much as the same
are the consequence of the internal changes made by the Complainant in their Villa, including
changes in respect of electrical and wiring. It is, therefore, submitted that alleging that the
Respondent Company is liable in respect of the said allegations is incorrect and denied.
49.

In light of the above, it is submitted that the additional maintenance amount that is to be

charged has been agreed upon by the owners and the Respondent Company in the GBM
resolution passed by the Society. Therefore, the allegations that the Respondent Company has
demanded additional maintenance amount is unfounded, baseless, and false.
50.

It is submitted that, the Society has collected not only the maintenance charges, but

additionally collected funds in relation to diesel supply for. It is, therefore, submitted that the
allegations and claims made by the Complainants that the Respondent Company is liable to
carry out all the activities as mentioned in the Complaints, goes beyond the GBM resolution
passed by the Society. It is submitted that it is the obligation of the Society to maintain the
common areas and amenities as the Society is in possession of the additional maintenance
charges and user charges. It is submitted that it is ill-conceived to aver that the Respondent
Company should spend its own monies, beyond the Pre-paid Maintenance Charges of Rs.
0.83/-, for the upkeep of the Project.
51.

It is submitted that the Respondent Company is under no obligation to carry out

maintenance works as claimed by the Complainants. It is submitted that the Society itself is
collecting the additional maintenance charges along with club house user charges, and the
Society has the obligation to maintain the common areas and facilities that fall within its
purview.

14 of 25

---

It is submitted that as far as the complaints regarding villas are concerned, the issues are

attributable to the internal modifications and changes undertaken by the Complainants after
completion of handover and the Respondent cannot be made liable to such issues.
53.

It is submitted that the abovementioned facts establish that the Complainants have filed

the present complaint with false and misleading facts, by suppressing material facts before this
Hon'ble Tribunal. It is submitted that, in the entire Complaints and the documents submitted,
the Complaints has not mentioned that the Society has collected, and is enjoying, the additional
maintenance charges and user charges. It is further submitted that the Complainant has
approached this Hon'ble Tribunal without any authorization from the Society, and the Society is
also not a party to the present Complaints. It is submitted that, in light of the abovementioned
facts the Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in the Complaints.

54.

In light of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this

Hon'ble Tribunal may reject the present Complaint for being misconceived, and also for
suppression of material facts and misleading this Hon'ble Forum.

D .Respondent 2 Reply:
55.

The President of Respondent No.2 Association, duly authorities submitted the present

reply and submits that I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and
competent to depose to this counter affidavit on behalf of the Association.
56.

At the outset, it is submitted that the Complainants herein and several other residents of

the residential layout project known as “Kavuri Forest Nest” (hereinafter “the Project”) had
individually executed registered Agreements of Sale with Respondent No.1. In accordance with
Clause 13(b) of said Agreements, Respondent No.1 had contractually undertaken to maintain
all common areas and essential services of the Project for a period of five (5) years from the
date of handover, in consideration of a prepaid maintenance charge of Rs. 50/- per square foot.
57.

Respondent No.2 admits that despite this contractual obligation, Respondent No.1, in or

around June 2024, unilaterally reduced the scope of services and simultaneously sought to
impose additional maintenance charges upon the residents. Notably, this action was taken
without any consultation or communication with either the residents or Respondent No.2,
thereby constituting a breach of the agreements and a denial of due process.
58.

It is submitted that Respondent No.1 drastically curtailed manpower and services in the

following manner:
a.

Security staff reduced from 24 to merely 4 personnel;
15 of 25

---

59.

Gardening staff reduced from 12 to none;
Housekeeping staff reduced from 12 to none;
Electricians reduced from 3 to 2;
Plumbers reduced from 3 to 1;
Pest control services discontinued;
Swimming pool maintenance and attendant services ceased.

Further, Respondent No.1 misappropriated and miscalculated funds under the guise of a

fabricated formula, applying ₹0.83 per unit per month over 5 years and transferring an arbitrary
portion of Rs. 6,21,694/- to the Society out of the actual expenses of Rs. 20,39,519/- incurred
for June 2024 alone. The deficit amount was expected to be recovered by Respondent No.2,
thereby shifting an unjustified financial burden onto the residents and the Society.
60.

Respondent No.1, while citing alleged “fund insufficiency,” demanded further

contributions despite the fact that maintenance costs had already been prepaid. Faced with this
untenable situation, the General Body of Respondent No.2 convened a meeting on 07.07.2024
and resolved to collect a temporary maintenance contribution of Rs. 1.37 per square foot to
resume basic services through Society’s independent management.
61.

It is submitted that this course of action became necessary due to repeated acts of

mismanagement and arbitrary decision-making by Respondent No.1. For instance, the DG
power rate was unilaterally increased from Rs. 28/- per unit to Rs. 65/- per unit without
consulting the residents or Respondent No.2, and in the absence of transparency regarding
prepaid funds.
62.

The erratic conduct of Respondent No.1 further exposed several residents to hardship

and risk. Many homeowners work remotely and require continuous power and internet
connectivity; certain senior residents rely on life-support systems that require uninterrupted
electricity. Moreover, the water supply is also dependent on the electric motor functioning. Any
disruption thus poses grave safety concerns for the community.
63.

Respondent No.1 further directed Respondent No.2 to procure diesel for generator

operation, while refusing to allocate such expenses from the prepaid maintenance funds. This
compelled Respondent No.2 to raise emergency funds, despite rightful reluctance from
residents who had already paid for such services.
64.

It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 began curtailing services even before the

formal handover of maintenance responsibilities. In a General Body meeting held on
26.05.2024, Respondent No.1 orally proposed to increase the maintenance rate and offer a onetime capital contribution to the Society, subject to approval. However, despite these

16 of 25

---

Owing to such persistent default, a subsequent General Body meeting was convened on

07.07.2024, wherein the residents resolved to:

66.

a.

Initiate legal proceedings against Respondent No.1 for breach of contract;

b.

Collect Rs. 1.37 per square foot for essential maintenance;

c.

Manage the Project’s common services independently through Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 supports the Complainants’ averment that Respondent No.1 had

marketed the project as a “gated community.” However, on 02.05.2024, local municipal
authorities issued an official notice for the removal of gates due to the lack of required
permissions. This clearly establishes false representation and mis-selling by Respondent No.1.
67.

With respect to clubhouse charges, it is submitted that Respondent No.1 collected Rs.

3,00,000/- + 18% GST per villa towards clubhouse membership from several residents,
amounting to an estimated Rs. 12,84,00,000/- in total. However, no such funds have been
transferred to Respondent No.2, nor have any detailed statements or utilization records been
provided.
68.

Furthermore, Respondent No.1 had also assured that once the resident association was

formed, the proceeds from rooftop solar power generation (10KW per villa) would be
reimbursed to individual residents. Despite repeated reminders and follow-up, neither data nor
reimbursements have been provided to date.
69.

It is submitted that the original project name, as per all early agreements and

promotional materials, was “Kavuri’s Forest Nest.” However, Respondent No.1 unilaterally
rebranded the project as “Kavuri Hills Forest Nest” without any statutory backing or prior
intimation, leading to confusion in official records and undermining the community’s collective
identity.
70.

Respondent No.2 submits that all of the above instances collectively establish that

Respondent No.1 has failed to perform its obligations under the Agreements of Sale. The
residents’ Association has had to assume responsibility for basic community services out of
compulsion. It is, therefore, just and necessary that Respondent No.1 be directed to reimburse
Respondent No.2 for all maintenance expenditures incurred post-June 2024, and further be held
accountable for breach of contractual commitments.
71.

In light of the foregoing submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Authority may be pleased to:

17 of 25

---

E. IA 91 of 2024 filed by the complainants:
72.

At the preliminary stage, Respondent No.1 raised an objection contending that the

Association of Allottees ought to have been impleaded as a necessary and proper party to the
present complaint. In response, the Complaint 183 of 2024 filed Interlocutory Application No.
91 of 2024, dated 13.11.2024, seeking to implead the Association as Respondent No.2. Upon
hearing the parties at length on the said IA, and considering that the core issue in the matter
pertains to the maintenance of the project and functioning of the Association, this Authority
found it appropriate to implead the Association as a necessary party to enable effective
adjudication. Accordingly, the IA was allowed.
73.

It is noted that although the said IA was filed by one of the Complainants, the matter

has consistently been heard as a batch of connected complaints post-admission stage. In view of
the commonality of issues, and the fact that Respondent No.2 has filed a consolidated reply
addressing the grievance as a whole, without distinction between individual complaints, this
Authority proceeds to treat Respondent No.2 as a party to all the connected complaints. No
objection to this course was raised by any of the parties during the proceedings.

F. Observations of the Authority:
74.

Based on the complaint, the reply filed by Respondent No.1, the counter-affidavit of

Respondent No.2, and upon careful perusal of the documents on record and written submissions
18 of 25

---

At the outset, it is pertinent to address the preliminary objection raised by the

Respondent with respect to the non-joinder of a proper party. It has been contended that the
Complainants have arrayed the Managing Director of M/s. Kavuri Hills Developers Pvt. Ltd. as
Respondent No.1 in his individual capacity, instead of impleading the company, which is the
contracting party under the Agreement of Sale (AoS).
76.

While the said objection is technically tenable in form, inasmuch as the Agreement of

Sale was executed with the corporate entity and not its director personally, the Authority notes
that throughout the course of proceedings, the counsel for Respondent No.1 has participated in
a representative capacity on behalf of M/s. Kavuri Hills Developers Pvt. Ltd., including in oral
arguments and in written submissions. No objection was raised at any material stage disputing
the locus or standing of the Complainants or the nature of the impleadment, save and except a
limited oral submission concerning the alleged absence of the Association of Allottees as a
necessary party.
77.

This Authority is of the considered view that objections relating to misjoinder or non-

joinder of parties cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive cause of justice, particularly when
such objections are not raised at the earliest opportunity and the conduct of the party indicates
an implied waiver. In the present case, the Respondent has consistently participated in the
proceedings, including filing replies and advancing arguments, which amounts to deemed
submission to the jurisdiction of this Authority. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised
by Respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. For the purpose of the present proceedings and this
Order, M/s. Kavuri Hills Developers Pvt. Ltd. shall be treated as the Respondent.
78.

The Complainants have sought a direction to restore and ensure maintenance services as

agreed under Clause 13(b) of the Agreement of Sale, and that no additional charges be levied
for such services during the stipulated period of five years.
79.

The relevant clause, i.e., Clause 13(b) of the Agreement of Sale, stipulates as under:
The purchaser shall pay to the Developer a sum of Rs. 50/- per Sft. Per five years
towards “Common Maintance Charges” at the time of handing over possession the
Schedule “C” Villas. The Developer either by itself or through an independent
agency shall maintain the common areas and the facilities in “Kavuri’s Forest Nest”
for a period of 5 years from the date of project is ready for occupation and the
Purchaser is not required to pay any further common maintenance charges for the
period of five years from the date of possession. The accounts for the said common
maintenance shall be maintained and excess amount if any shall be transferred to the
corpus fund.

19 of 25

---

Thus, the said clause contractually obligates the Respondent to maintain the project for

a period of five years from the date of readiness for occupation, without collecting any further
amounts from allottees. The total consideration for maintenance during this period was prepaid
by the allottees at Rs. 50/- per square foot, which equates to approximately Rs. 0.83 per square
foot per month.
81.

The Authority has also examined Clause 13(f), which obligates the allottees to pay a

separate amount of Rs. 100/- per square foot towards infrastructure development such as power
supply, water, sewage, and other facilities. This clause is independent of the common
maintenance clause and is not relevant to routine maintenance obligations.
82.

The Respondent has contended that the maintenance services are being rendered within

the limits of the pre-paid charges and that no additional amounts have been collected by it. It is
further submitted that, pursuant to a General Body Meeting (GBM) convened by Respondent
No.2 (Association of Residents) on 26.05.2024, a resolution was passed wherein the residents
resolved to enhance the maintenance charges to Rs. 2.20 per square foot per month. Of this
amount, Rs. 0.83 per square foot would constitute the prepaid component, and the balance Rs.
1.37 per square foot would be paid directly to a second maintenance agency engaged by the
Association for additional services.
83.

While Respondent No.1 states that it continues to provide basic maintenance services

within the scope of the prepaid charges, Respondent No.2 has contended that Respondent No.1
has, since June 2024, unilaterally reduced the scope of maintenance and failed to meet the
agreed standards, leading to the Association’s decision to engage an alternate agency and
collect additional funds.
84.

At this juncture, the Authority deems it appropriate to refer to Section 11(4)(a) of the

RE(R&D) Act, 2016, which provides:
The promoter shall--(a)be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and
functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made
thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of
allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or
buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the association
of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be:

84.

In light of the above, it is clear that the promoter’s obligations under the agreement of

sale continue until the conveyance of the common areas is completed. The Respondent, having
contractually undertaken to maintain the project for a period of five years, cannot unilaterally
dilute or withdraw from the scope of such services on the ground that the residents have chosen
to supplement them with additional arrangements through their Association.
20 of 25

---

However, the Authority is also of the view that the Association and its members cannot

expect additional services beyond the scope of the agreed maintenance charges to be funded by
the Respondent. Any enhancement of service levels, deployment of additional manpower, or
engagement of third-party agencies beyond the terms of the AoS falls within the exclusive
domain of the Association, and the Authority shall not interfere in the internal resolutions or
financial decisions taken therein.
86.

The Authority also notes the Complainants reliance on certain alleged verbal assurances

by the Respondent 1 regarding extended or enhanced services. It is clarified that such verbal
undertakings, if not reflected in the written or Agreement of Sale, shall have no binding legal
effect before this Authority, particularly when they relate to post-possession operational
decisions falling within the purview of the Association.
87.

It is also pertinent to reiterate the role of this Authority as envisaged under the preamble

and object of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which is to regulate and
promote the real estate sector, protect the interests of consumers, ensure transparency in project
execution, and enforce the respective rights and obligations of promoters and allottees as
delineated under the RE(R&D) Act and the agreements executed thereunder. The scope of
adjudication under the RE(R&D) Act does not extend to post-possession internal administrative
matters of the Association, including day-to-day maintenance issues such as road sweeping,
gardening, cleaning of common areas, and similar operational concerns, particularly when a
considerable period over three years has elapsed since the handover of possession. Such matters
are to be managed internally by the Association of Allottees, and this Authority shall refrain
from interfering in the routine decisions and operational modalities adopted by the Association.
88.

The Complainants have alleged that the Respondent had advertised and promoted the

project as a “gated community” across various forums, including social media platforms,
thereby creating legitimate expectations among homebuyers. However, they contend that the
local municipal authorities, i.e., Tukkuguda Municipality, subsequently issued notices for the
removal of the entry gates as the Respondent had failed to obtain requisite permissions for the
same. These concerns have also been reiterated by Respondent No.2 (Association of Allottees).
89.

In response, Respondent No.1 has submitted that although a show-cause notice had

indeed been issued by the local municipal body, the matter is presently sub judice before the
Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in W.P. No. 13319 of 2024, wherein vide order dated
09.05.2024, the Hon’ble Court has directed status quo to be maintained with respect to the said
issue.
21 of 25

---

In view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble High Court and the issuance

of the status quo order, this Authority, in keeping with judicial discipline and comity, refrains
from expressing any opinion or issuing directions on the issue of the gates and permissions at
this juncture.
91.

However, the Authority deems it appropriate to remind Respondent No.1 that it is

legally bound to adhere strictly to the sanctioned layout plans and approvals obtained from the
competent planning authority. Any deviation from the approved layout, without proper
permission, shall attract penal consequences under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The
promoter is accordingly cautioned to remain compliant with the sanctioned plans and refrain
from unauthorized constructions or modifications.
92.

The Complainants have further alleged that underground electrical cables have been laid

without adequate safety measures, thereby posing a hazard to residents. Respondent No.1 has
categorically denied the said allegation.
93.

Upon careful examination of the material placed on record, it is observed that the

Complainants have only submitted isolated photographs of underground cables, without any
conclusive evidence such as an inspection report from a electrical authority or a certified
technical expert linking the alleged safety lapses to the project in question.
94.

In the absence of verifiable or corroborative evidence, and given the generalised nature

of the allegations, the Authority finds no merit in this prayer. Accordingly, no relief can be
granted on this issue at this stage.
95.

The Complainants and Respondent No.2 have submitted that each allottee was charged

an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards clubhouse membership, which was inclusive of GST. It is
further contended that in addition to the said sum, residents are being asked to pay separate user
charges for access to facilities such as the gym, swimming pool, workspaces, and indoor
games, and that the membership amounts collected have not been transferred to the Association
of Allottees.
96.

Respondent No.1 has submitted that the amount collected towards clubhouse

membership is non-refundable and distinct from user charges. It is further argued that the
Agreement of Sale does not contemplate refund of membership fees or the transfer of such
amounts to the Association.

22 of 25

---

The Authority observes that clubhouse membership charges collected by the promoter,

in the absence of any specific clause in the Agreement of Sale stipulating refundability or
transfer to the Association, shall ordinarily be construed as a one-time, non-refundable fee
towards the right of access and usage of the said facility. Such charges, if levied transparently
and in accordance with the contractual terms, shall be deemed valid, subject to the overarching
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
98.

In the present case, the Agreement of Sale executed between the parties does not

contain any clause stipulating refund or reallocation of such membership fees. In the absence of
any such contractual provision, the Authority cannot direct a refund or transfer of the same.
Therefore, this prayer is rejected.
99.

The Complainants and Respondent No.2 have alleged that the Respondent has

unilaterally altered the project’s name from “Kavuri Forest Nest” to “Kavuri Hills Forest Nest”
in promotional material and on internal signage, without obtaining the consent of the allottees
or prior approval from the Authority.
100.

Respondent No.1 contends that the use of “Kavuri Hills” is merely a stylized logo

addition and does not constitute a formal renaming of the project. It is further submitted that
such branding is reversible and does not affect the legal status of the project.
101.

This Authority observes that the registered name of the project, as reflected in the

sanctioned plans and the executed Agreements of Sale, is “Kavuri Forest Nest.” Any change in
the project name, even if stylistic or logo-based, must be done in a manner that is transparent,
non-misleading, and duly communicated to allottees.
102.

Therefore, Respondent No.1 is directed to retain and restore the original name “Kavuri

Forest Nest” in all documents, promotional materials, internal signage, and online
representations. Any deviation from the registered name, without regulatory approval, shall be
treated as a breach of transparency obligations under the Act.
103.

Several individual Complainants have alleged that their villas are facing water leakage

issues. However, the Authority notes that no substantiating evidence, such as structural audit
reports, photographs linking the defect to specific units, or expert opinions, has been furnished
to establish that the alleged water leakage pertains to the project in question or is attributable to
the construction quality of the Respondent.

23 of 25

---

In the absence of such corroborative evidence, the Authority finds no basis to entertain

these claims. The photographs submitted are general in nature and do not establish the linkage
with the respective complainants' units.
105.

The Complainants have also sought compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and

hardships .It is clarified that claims seeking compensation or interest for alleged deficiency in
service fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016, read with Rule 35(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017.
103.

Accordingly, the Complainants are at liberty to pursue such monetary claims by filing

an appropriate complaint before the Adjudicating Officer in Form ‘N’, in accordance with law.
E. Directions of the Authority:
104.

In light of the foregoing observations and findings, and in exercise of the powers

conferred upon the Authority under Sections 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, the following directions are issued:
a) Respondent No.1 is directed to continue providing maintenance services for the
common areas and facilities of the project strictly in accordance with Clause 13(b) of
the Agreement of Sale and shall maintain the standard and scope of services initially
provided at the time of handover and shall not impose any additional charges nor reduce
the quality or frequency of such services during the subsisting term. However,
Respondent No.1 shall not be obligated to provide services or deploy resources beyond
the scope and financial limits of the agreed maintenance terms. Any augmentation of
services, deployment of additional staff, or engagement of alternate maintenance
agencies for enhanced requirements shall be within the discretion of the Association
(Respondent No.2), which may take such measures as it deems fit through its General
Body Meetings. This Authority shall not interfere in such internal administrative
decisions of the Association, provided they do not contravene the terms of the
Agreement of Sale or the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
b) Respondent No.1 shall not reduce or dilute the scope and standard of maintenance
services that were being provided at the time of handover and during the initial years of
possession.
c) Respondent No.1 is directed to retain and restore the original project name “Kavuri
Forest Nest” in all documentation, promotional materials, online platforms, and internal
24 of 25

---

105.

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.
106.

The complaint accordingly stands disposed of. 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

25 of 25

---