Order Complaint No.244 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 244 of 2024
Dated:28th March 2025
Corum:

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

Mahendhar Thota
(H.no4-378/13, Madhura Nagar, Gangadhara, Karimnagar, Telangana- 505445)
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Jayathri Infrastructure India Pvt Ltd
(rep KakarlaSrinivas-plot no. 140,141, Eminent plaza, KPHB Colony, KukatpallyHyderabad)
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
11.12.2024 before this Authority wherein the Complainant appeared in person. Despite
service of notice, the Respondent failed to appear, and as such, was set ex parte vide order
dated 11.12.2024, and after hearing the Complainant, 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 Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondent.
A.

The Brief facts of the case as per allegations/averments contained in the complaint are

as follows:

3.

The Complainant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated

26.01.2022 with the Respondent for the purchase of a commercial space measuring 300
square feet, designated as Office No. 20/E, located on the 2nd floor of a commercial project
named Western Galaxy. The said project comprises a total built-up area of 1,00,000 square
feet, along with an undivided share of land admeasuring 4.8 square yards (out of Ac. 4 acres)
1 of 5

situated in Survey No. 36/20, Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, GHMC
Serilingampally Circle, Ranga Reddy District.
4.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the Complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/-

(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) towards the booking amount for the
aforementioned unit.
5.

The MOU further stipulated that the Respondent would register the commercial spave

within December 2024..
6.

The Respondent unequivocally assured the Complainant that the fully constructed

commercial unit would be delivered by December 2024. It was further contractually agreed
that in the event of a delay in possession, the Respondent would be liable to compensate the
Complainant at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square foot per month until actual possession is
handed over.
7.

Despite the aforesaid assurances, the Respondent has failed to fulfil its contractual

obligations and has not delivered possession of the scheduled property within the stipulated
timeframe. The inordinate delay in completion of the project and the failure to provide the
agreed compensation for the delay constitute gross violations of the terms of the agreement.
B.Relief Sought:
8.

Aggrieved by the acts of the Respondent, the Complainant pray for the following:
a. Refund of amount Rs. 13,50,000/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand) along with
interest.

C. Observations of the Authority:
Points for Consideration:
1. Whether the Respondent has violated section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought?

2 of 5

Point 1
9.

This Authority notes that over 20 similar complaints have been filed against the same

Respondent concerning the same project. In prior proceedings, the Respondent’s counsel
submitted that due to non-compliance with the Agreement of Sale entered into with Sri M.
Laxmi Kanthai and Sri V. Gowrith on 25.03.2021, a portion of the project land is under
litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby preventing the commencement of the
project. Consequently, the said project has not been registered under RERA.In Complaint No.
1037 of 2023 & batch matters, this Authority directed an inspection of the concerned project
site through the Engineering Staff College of India (ESCI) vide Letter No.
1458/2023/TSRERA dated 10.10.2023. As per the ESCI report (ESCI/PD/TSRERA/07/202324) dated 01.12.2023, the project site remains vacant with no progress. There is no evidence
to establish the Respondent’s ownership or legal authority to undertake the project.
10.

Further, this Authority has previously imposed a penalty of Rs. 36,70,000/- for

contravening section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 on the Respondent in Complaint No. 1037
of 2023 & batch matters, dated 12.08.2024.. Since the penalty has already been imposed in
the aforementioned order, this Authority does not find it necessary to impose an additional
penalty under Section 3 of the RE(R&D)Act. Thus, Point 1 is answered accordingly.
Point 2:

11.

The Complainants seek a refund of the amounts paid. The Respondent has failed to

fulfil its contractual obligations. Section 18(1) of the Act provides that if a promoter fails to
complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment or commercial space as per the
terms of the agreement, the allottee has an unqualified right to seek a refund of the paid
amount along with interest.
12.

The provision for refund with interest applies when the promoter fails to complete the

project and the allottee wishes to withdraw. The allottee is entitled to interest to safeguard
their interests if the promoter fails to perform their obligations and is unable to hand over
possession.
13.

Attention is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil

Appeal Nos. 3581-359 of 2022, Civil Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures
Limited vs. Anil Patni & Others, wherein it was held:

3 of 5

"In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or
is unable to give possession of an apartment by the date specified in the
agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the
amount received in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to
withdraw from the project. Such a right of the allottee is 'without
prejudice to any other remedy available to him'. This right is unqualified,
and if availed, the deposited money must be refunded with interest as
prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(1) contemplates that if the allottee
does not intend to withdraw from the project, they are entitled to interest
for every month of delay until possession is handed over. The allottee may
proceed under Section 18(1) or the proviso thereto."
14.

Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021, M/s Newtech Promoters and

Developers Private Limited vs. State of UP & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
"Section 18(1) of the Act spells out the consequences if the promoter
fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an 9 of 10
apartment, plot, or building in terms of the agreement for sale. The
allottee/home buyer holds an unqualified right to seek a refund of the
amount with interest as prescribed."
15.

Based on the records available, the averments made by the Complainant, and the

history of the Respondent’s violations, it is evident that the Respondent has kept several
complainants on hold for years by making false assurances regarding the registration of
commercial spaces in their names. It is pertinent to note that M/s Jayathri Infrastructures has
consistently violated the Act by misleading the public in multiple projects, thereby
demonstrating mala fide intent.
16.

Therefore, considering the aforementioned case laws and the provision of Section 18

of the RE(R&D) Act, this Authority is of the opinion that the Complainant, having invested a
substantial sum in anticipation of acquiring the allotted commercial space, has been
wrongfully deprived of their rights due to the Respondent’s absolute failure to execute the
project. Consequently, the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought, which includes a full
refund of the amount paid along with applicable interest.

4 of 5

17.

The Respondent is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant,

along with interest i.e Current Highest marginal cost of State Bank of India (9%) plus 2%
that is 11% per annum, calculated from the date of the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) entered into with the Complainant until the date of actual realization. This repayment
shall be completed within 90 days from the date of this order.
18.

The Complainant shall return any collateral land, if applicable, to the Respondent

immediately upon receipt of the refunded amount, inclusive of interest.
D. Directions of the Authority:
19.

In light of the findings of the Authority as recorded above, the following directions

are issued under Section 37 of the RE(R&D) Act to ensure compliance with the obligations
imposed upon the promoter as per the functions entrusted to the Authority under Section
34(f) of the RE(R&D) Act:
a. The Respondent is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant for
the commercial spaces/units in the project "Western Galaxy" as mentioned above,
along with interest of 11% per annum from the date of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) entered into with complainant, until the date of actual
realization.
b. The refund of the entire amount shall be paid by the Respondent to the complainant
within a period of 90 days from the date of this Order.
c. The complainantsshall return the collateral lands to the Respondent immediately upon
receipt of the refunded amount, inclusive of interest.
20.

In light of the above findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed of.

The parties shall bear their own costs. The parties are hereby informed that failure to comply
with this Order shall attract Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdDr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

5 of 5