Order Complaint No.301 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 18th February, 2026
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO. 300/2025/TGRERA & 301/2025/TGRERA

1. Shri. Yethi Ramesh
2. Shri Yethi Sumanth

4th Floor, Flat No. #401, Tella Subramaniam Apartments,
Hig 521-522, 6th Phase, Kukkatpally,
Hyderabad, Telangana- 500072.

…Complainants
Versus
M/s Pacifica Construction Pvt. Ltd. represented by its CEO, Mr. Ashish Handa
C/o.M/s.Nebula Infraspace LLP
Nebula Aavaas Hyderabad, Bollaram Road,
Coca-Cola Junction, Ameenpura, Miyapur, Hyderabad-500049.

…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein-above came up for
hearing before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant, and the Respondent’s counsel
M. Naga Deepak and V. Ravi Kiran. Upon hearing the submissions of all the parties, this
Authority proceeds to pass 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. Brief facts of the Case as per Form M filed by Complainant
3.

It was submitted that Mr. Yethi Sumanth (hereinafter "the Complainant") was the

allottee of two separate flats, Flat No. AW2-606 (Case 300/25) and Flat No. AW2-605 (Case
301/25), in the project "AAVAS HYDERABAD" (also promoted as "Nebula Avassa") located
at Bachupally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, registered under RERA Registration No.
P02200000223.

Page 1 of 12

---

In the matter of Flat No. AW2-606 (Case 300/25), it was submitted that the flat

admeasured 607 sq. ft. and was allotted vide booking form dated 23/12/2016 for a total
consideration of ₹20,25,969/- (excluding GST). It was stated that a total of ₹20,13,324/- had
been paid in multiple instalments.
5.

In the matter of Flat No. AW2-605 (Case 301/25), it was submitted that the flat

admeasured 607 sq. ft. and was allotted vide booking form dated 23/12/2016 for a total
consideration of ₹21,25,969/- (excluding GST). It was stated that a total of ₹20,61,705/- had
been paid in multiple instalments.
6.

It was submitted for both complaints that the project commenced in 2018. It was

contended that as per the Agreement of Sale (Clause 10), the promoter was obligated to deliver
possession of the flat within 60 months, establishing a deadline of 25/01/2024, which had
expired.
7.

It was stated that despite over seven years having passed and approximately 95% of the

total cost being paid, the flats had not been handed over.
8.

It was contended that this failure to deliver possession constituted a violation of Section

18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
9.

It was submitted that the prolonged delay had resulted in a dual financial burden on the

Complainant, who was paying both monthly rent and instalments. It was contended that the
promoter must be held accountable and directed to compensate the Complainant for the
financial and mental hardship.
10.

It was further alleged that the promoter was registering and handing over flats to other

customers without completing essential services, such as water and electricity, and without
obtaining occupancy certificates.
11.

It was alleged that the promoter was collecting GST at a rate of 8%, whereas the

Complainant contended that the applicable GST rate for affordable housing should be 1%.
12.

Finally, it was submitted that as per the Agreement of Sale (Clause 8.a.ii), the promoter

was to collect an advance maintenance fee for 24 months at ₹1.25 per sq. ft. (amounting to
₹18,210/-). It was alleged that for Case 300/25 (Flat AW2-606), this charge had been increased
to ₹23.60 per sq. ft. without notice, and for Case 301/25 (Flat AW2-605), it had been increased
to ₹13.60 per sq. ft. without notice.

Page 2 of 12

---

Accordingly, the Complainants sought the following reliefs:
Please direct the promoter to register and hand over the possession of our flat
immediately with an occupancy certificate.

ii.

Please direct the promoter to waive off all of the late fee changes imposed in the cost
sheet prior to the official flat allocation.

iii.

Please direct the promoter to compensate me for the financial loss due to delay in the
project as mentioned in AFS and for the mental agony which is tolerated for 7 years.

iv.

Please direct the promoter to bind the agreement of sale, with respect to the
maintenance charges mentioned.

v.

Please update the GST authority for unfair collection of excess GST from the allottees
and direct the promoter to refund the excess percentage collected along with the
interest.

C. Counter filed by the Respondents
14.

It was affirmed by Vikram Daitha, the authorized signatory of the Respondent, who

stated that he was well acquainted with the facts of the cases and swore to the contents of the
present affidavits.
15.

At the outset, it was submitted that the present complaints were not maintainable either

in facts or in law and were only vexatious and frivolous litigation to harass the Respondent
herein.
16.

It was respectfully submitted that the present complaints had been filed with the

following prayers: i. To direct the Promoter to register and handover possession of the Flats
Immediately ii. To direct the promoter to waive off all the late fee charges. iii. Direct the
promoter to compensate for the financial loss due to delay in the project. iv. Direct promoter to
bind the agreement of sale and maintenance charges as mentioned. v. Recommend the GST
Authority for unfair collection of excess GST.
17.

In relation to the first prayer, it was respectfully submitted that the Complainants were

offered to clear the existing dues and proceed for registration right from the month of April
2025. It was stated that the authorized representative of the Respondent had appeared before
the Hon'ble Authority and conveyed the willingness to register the sale deeds, subject to
Page 3 of 12

---

It was further submitted that the entire project was complete, and an application for an

occupancy certificate had been submitted to the Competent Authority and was under process.
It was contended that the project could not be stated as incomplete, and in fact, the clubhouse
and common areas were also complete. It was added that the Respondent was ready to rectify
any defects pointed out in the complainants' units and that the only reason for non-registration
was the delay in the Complainants making the payments.
19.

In so far as the second prayer regarding late payment charges, it was submitted that the

Complainants could not now seek a waiver, as it ought to be appreciated that the Complainants
had paid the down payment and thereafter every payment had been delayed. Reliance was
placed on an Order passed by the Ld. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Complaint
No. CMP/201230/0007353).
20.

Regarding the third prayer for compensation, it was respectfully submitted that the

agreement of sale was executed, wherein the complainants had agreed to a handover of
possession after a period of 60 months from the date of execution. It was submitted that in view
of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hon'ble authority had extended the timeline for completion.
It was stated that the Respondent had registered the project Aavas Hyderabad (No.
P02200000223), which was valid up to 31-12-2024, and a further extension of 6 months ending
30-06-2025 was granted. Therefore, it was contended that the question of delay did not arise,
much less the payment of compensation for such non-existent delay.
21.

Regarding the fourth prayer concerning maintenance charges, it was stated that while it

was true the agreement specified Rs. 1.25 per sft, this price was agreed upon in 2019 based on
2016 charges. It was submitted that prices had subsequently risen, entitling the Developer to
enhance the charges. It was argued that the Agreement for sale specifically stated charges would
be fixed on an estimate basis, with actual costs collected subsequently. Therefore, as actual
costs had gone up, the Respondent was charging Rs. 3.6 per sft, and there was no illegality.
22.

Regarding the fifth prayer concerning GST, it was submitted that the applicable rate for

affordable projects was 8% with input tax credit. A new mandatory rate of 1% (without input
tax credit) was prescribed vide Notification No 03/2019 for projects commencing on or after
1st April 2019. It was stated that the notification provided builders of ongoing projects, which
Page 4 of 12

---

In the para-wise response to the facts of the case, It was stated as true to the extent that

the Complainants in Case No. 300/25 had booked Flat No. AW2-606, with allocation done on
05-02-2017, and had agreed to delivery within 60 months from 17-05-2019 (the date of the
agreement of sale). It was stated as true that this Complainant had paid Rs. 21,84,668/-. It was
stated as true to the extent that the Complainants in Case No. 301/25 had booked Flat No. AW2605, with allocation done on 05-02-2017, and had agreed to delivery within 60 months from
17-05-2019 (the date of the agreement of sale). It was stated as true that this Complainant had
paid Rs. 22,92,699/-. For both cases, it was argued that the execution of the agreement of sale
superseded any previous agreements, and that the balance sale consideration had to be paid,
upon which the Respondent would execute the sale deed. It was specifically denied that the
Respondent was not delivering or registering the flats; it was submitted that the Complainants
themselves acknowledged the construction was complete and an occupancy certificate was
awaited. It was reiterated that the Respondent was ready to execute the sale deeds subject to
clearance of all dues. It was stated as true that the project was promoted under the brand name
Nebula, which facilitates marketing and booking activities for the Respondent, and there was
no illegality in this. The allegation that this was misleading was stated as incorrect and denied.
The allegation that the applicable GST was 1% was stated as incorrect and denied; it was
reiterated that the applicable GST was 8%.
24.

Therefore, in view of the above, it was humbly prayed that the authority be pleased to

dismiss the present complaint.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainants
25.

It was affirmed by Yethi Sumanth, the Complainant herein, who stated that he was fully

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and had perused the Counter-Affidavit
filed by the Respondent.
26.

It was submitted that the contents of the Respondent's Counter-Affidavit, except for

what was expressly admitted, were categorically denied as being contrary to the facts on record.
The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent that the present complaint was "vexatious
Page 5 of 12

---

Regarding the Respondent's assertion that they were willing to register the flat subject

to clearance of dues, it was submitted that this contention was false and misleading. It was
stated that the Complainant had already paid 100% of the sale consideration including all
charges demanded, and there was no outstanding amount or late payment history. Despite this,
it was submitted, the Respondent had failed to hand over the flat in a habitable and liveable
condition with essential amenities such as electricity, water supply, and other basic facilities. It
was claimed that more than 100 registered flat owners were still struggling to obtain peaceful
possession of their respective units in a liveable condition.
28.

The Respondent's demand for maintenance charges without handing over possession

was described as unjust and illegal, amounting to a deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice. It was also noted that although the Respondent claimed to have applied for an
Occupancy Certificate (OC), the OC was only received recently on 14.09.2025 from HMDA,
raising serious concerns as to how it was issued when flats were still not in a liveable condition.
29.

A prayer was made that the Respondent be directed to hand over possession in a liveable

condition before demanding maintenance charges and not to consider any maintenance charges
prior to actual handover. Reference was made to a final payment cost sheet from the builder
mentioning "ZERO" dues and emails from other registered flat owners regarding postregistration issues.
30.

Regarding the Respondent's reliance on the 60-month clause in the Agreement for Sale

dated 25.10.2018, it was submitted that this was a gross misrepresentation. It was stated that
the agreed 60 months expired on 25.10.2023, and the Respondent was clearly in delay
thereafter. It was acknowledged that RERA granted a force majeure extension due to COVID19 (up to 30.06.2025), but it was argued that this extension was in favour of the builder and
could not be stretched to deny compensation to the allottee. It was submitted that in line with
Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, the Complainant was entitled to interest for the period of
delay from January 2024 until the date of actual handover of the flat in habitable condition. It
was therefore respectfully submitted that the Respondent was liable to compensate for the said
delay by paying interest on the amounts already paid. Reference was made to a builder
commitment document (Form B) to deliver/complete the project by December 2023.

Page 6 of 12

---

Regarding the increase in maintenance charges, it was submitted that as per the

Agreement for Sale, the agreed rate was ₹1.25 per sq. ft. It was argued that any unilateral
increase to ₹3.50 per sq. ft. without the consent of allottees or a registered maintenance
agreement was illegal and void. It was further submitted that since possession had not yet been
lawfully handed over and the project had exceeded the contractual completion timeline, the
Complainant was not liable to pay escalated charges and the Respondent was bound by the
contractually agreed rate.
32.

Regarding the GST collection, it was submitted that the Respondent's justification for

levying 8% GST was untenable. It was claimed the project was marketed as an "affordable
housing" project, for which the applicable rate of GST was 1% under the relevant notification.
It was argued that the Respondent's unilateral decision to opt for the 8% regime, without
consent or consultation with the Complainants, amounted to an unfair trade practice and
misrepresentation. It was contended that the fact that the Respondent claimed to have remitted
GST to the Government did not absolve them from their liability to correctly charge and refund
the excess GST unlawfully collected. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Complainant was
entitled to a refund of the excess GST collected, along with interest.
E. Points for Consideration
33.

After considering the facts stated and submissions made by both parties, the following

question arises before this Authority:
I.

Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs sought? If so, to what extent?

F. Observations of the Authority
Reliefs (i) and (ii)
34.

Before determining Relief No. (i), which pertains to the registration and handover of

the flats, this Authority finds it necessary to first examine the issue raised under Relief No. (ii)
relating to the late payment charges reflected in the Respondent’s cost sheets. This is because
the determination of such charges directly impacts the final settlement of dues, which in turn
forms the basis for the execution and registration of the Sale Deed. Unless the legitimacy and
correctness of these charges is adjudicated, the Complainants cannot be expected to clear the
alleged dues, and the registration process under Section 17 of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 cannot
proceed in a fair and transparent manner.

Page 7 of 12

---

With regard to the second relief, the Complainants have contended that the late payment

charges demanded by the Respondent are arbitrary, excessive, and unsupported by a transparent
computation. It is the case of the Complainants that they have already paid a substantial portion
of the sale consideration, amounting to approximately 95% of the total cost, and that the
Respondent has failed to furnish a clear, itemised, and intelligible Statement of Accounts
explaining the basis, period, and calculation of the alleged late payment charges. The
Complainants have further contended that in the absence of possession being handed over in a
habitable condition and without an Occupancy Certificate for a substantial period, the levy of
penal charges is unjustified.
36.

The Respondent, on the other hand, has contended that the Complainants were irregular

in making payments after the initial down payment and that late payment charges were levied
strictly in accordance with the terms of the Agreement for Sale. It was submitted that the
Respondent is contractually entitled to levy such charges and that the same have been duly
reflected in the cost sheets issued to the Complainants.
37.

Upon a careful examination of the pleadings and material placed on record, this

Authority observes that while the Agreement for Sale does provide for the levy of late payment
charges in the event of delayed instalments, such levy must necessarily be supported by a clear,
itemised, and transparent Statement of Accounts, indicating the specific instalments delayed,
the period of delay, the applicable rate, and the manner of computation. In the present case, the
Respondent has failed to place on record any such detailed and intelligible statement explaining
the exact basis on which the late payment charges have been computed.
38.

This Authority further observes that the Complainants have consistently raised concerns

regarding the non-handover of possession in a habitable condition and the absence of an
Occupancy Certificate for a considerable period. In such circumstances, the unilateral levy of
penal charges, without first placing the Complainants in a position to verify and reconcile the
alleged dues, cannot be sustained.
39.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Respondent is not entitled to insist upon

payment of late payment charges without first furnishing a clear, itemised, and revised
Statement of Accounts strictly in accordance with the Agreement for Sale and the actual
payment history of the Complainants.
40.

Consequently, this Authority directs that the calculation of the amounts due and payable

by the Complainants shall be reworked by the Respondent and a revised Statement of Accounts
Page 8 of 12

---

This Authority now proceeds to consider Relief No. (i) concerning registration and

handover of possession of the flats. In this regard, the Respondent has asserted that the project
“AAVAS HYDERABAD” is complete and that the Occupancy Certificate has been applied for
and/or obtained. It has further been contended that the Respondent is ready and willing to
execute and register the sale deeds subject to clearance of the alleged dues.
42.

Section 17 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 mandates that

the promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed in favour of the allottee and hand over
possession. It is reproduced here for reference:
17. Transfer of title.—(1) The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed
in favour of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the common
areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may
be, and hand over the physical possession of the plot, apartment of building, as the
case may be, to the allottees and the common areas to the association of the allottees
or the competent authority, as the case may be, in a real estate project, and the other
title documents pertaining thereto within specified period as per sanctioned plans
as provided under the local laws: Provided that, in the absence of any local law,
conveyance deed in favour of the allottee or the association of the allottees or the
competent authority, as the case may be, under this section shall be carried out by
the promoter within three months from date of issue of occupancy certificate.
(2) After obtaining the occupancy certificate and handing over physical possession
to the allottees in terms of sub-section (1), it shall be the responsibility of the
promoter to handover the necessary documents and plans, including common areas,
to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, as
per the local laws: Provided that, in the absence of any local law, the promoter shall
handover the necessary documents and plans, including common areas, to the
association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, within
thirty days after obtaining the completion certificate.
43.

Thus, once the Occupancy Certificate is obtained, the Respondent is statutorily bound

to proceed with the execution and registration of the sale deeds and cannot withhold the same
on the basis of disputed or unsubstantiated claims.
Page 9 of 12

---

Accordingly, this Authority directs the Respondent to furnish to the Complainants a

clear, itemised, and revised Statement of Accounts in respect of Flat No. AW2-606 (Case No.
300/25) and Flat No. AW2-605 (Case No. 301/25), strictly in accordance with the Agreement
for Sale and the findings recorded hereinabove, indicating only the legitimate dues payable by
the Complainants.
45.

Upon receipt of such revised Statement of Accounts, the Complainants shall clear the

legitimate dues, if any, within the time stipulated therein. Upon such clearance, the Respondent
shall proceed to execute and register the sale deeds in respect of Flat Nos. AW2-606 and AW2605 in favour of the Complainants, in accordance with Section 17 of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016,
and hand over possession in accordance with the law.
Relief (iii)
46.

Moving on to the third relief sought by the Complainants, namely the claim for

compensation for the alleged financial loss and mental agony suffered by the Complainants
due to the delay in completion and delivery of the flat, this Authority finds it necessary to
clarify the statutory scheme governing adjudication of such claims under the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
47.

Under the framework of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016, a clear distinction is drawn between

the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority and that of the Adjudicating Officer. While this
Authority is empowered to regulate, enforce obligations of promoters, and issue directions
under Sections 37 and 38 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016, claims relating to compensation or
monetary damages fall exclusively within the domain of the Adjudicating Officer appointed
under Section 71 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.
Relief (iv)
48.

With regard to the issue of maintenance charges, this Authority notes that the

Agreement of Sale between the parties was entered into in the year 2018. It is an admitted
position that more than six years have elapsed since the execution of the said Agreement.
During this period, there has been a substantial increase in the cost of goods, services,
manpower, utilities, and other inputs required for the upkeep and maintenance of a residential
apartment complex.
49.

This Authority takes notice of the fact that inflationary pressures over a prolonged

period inevitably result in the escalation of maintenance-related expenses. In such
Page 10 of 12

---

At the same time, it is the view of the Authority that the determination of maintenance

charges must eventually reflect the collective will of the allottees and the actual cost incurred
for maintaining common areas and facilities. The promoter cannot unilaterally fix or continue
to revise maintenance charges.
51.

Therefore, while upholding the revision of maintenance charges at this stage, this

Authority directs the Respondent to convene a General Meeting of the Association of Allottees,
within a reasonable time, for the purpose of placing before them the maintenance requirements
and arriving at a consensus regarding the maintenance charges to be levied henceforth. Upon
such determination by the Association, the maintenance charges shall be governed accordingly.
Relief (v)
52.

With respect to the fifth relief sought namely, the allegation that the Respondent has

unfairly collected GST at 8% instead of the concessional 1% applicable to affordable housing,
and the corresponding prayer to recommend action against the Respondent, this Authority
deems it necessary to delineate the scope of its jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016.
53.

The issue raised by the Complainants pertains entirely to the applicability of the correct

rate of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and whether the Respondent has lawfully discharged its
obligations under the GST statutory framework. The assessment of tax liability, correctness of
tax rates applied, classification of the project under GST, and any alleged excess or improper
collection of GST fall exclusively within the domain of the GST authorities, constituted under
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
54.

Accordingly, this Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate whether GST has been

wrongly collected or to issue recommendations or directions to the GST Department on such
matters. Any grievance regarding the rate charged, excess collection, or misclassification must
be raised before the appropriate GST authority in accordance with the procedures laid down
under the GST laws.
Page 11 of 12

---

Hence, the Complainants are directed to approach the competent authority within the

GST Department for redressal of their grievance, if they are so advised. No further orders are
required on this issue.
G. Directions of the Authority
56.

In light of the discussions and findings made hereinabove, this Authority, vide its

powers under Sections 37 and 38, issues the following directions to the Respondent:
i.

The Respondent is directed to rework and revise the Statement of Accounts in respect
of Flat No. AW2-606 (Case No. 300/25) and Flat No. AW2-605 (Case No. 301/25) by
excluding all unjustified and unsupported late payment charges and by computing late
payment charges, if any, only with reference to actual defaults, if any, committed by the
Complainants themselves, strictly in accordance with the terms of the respective
Agreements for Sale, and the same shall be furnished to the Complainants.

ii.

The Complainants are directed to clear the legitimate dues, if any, reflected in the
revised Statement of Accounts, and upon such clearance, the Respondent shall proceed
to execute and register the sale deeds in respect of Flat No. AW2-606 and Flat No. AW2605 in favour of the Complainants, in accordance with Section 17 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and hand over possession in accordance with
law.

iii.

The Respondent is directed to convene a General Meeting of the Association of
Allottees, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, for the purpose of
determining the maintenance charges henceforth, as the project stands complete. The
maintenance charges shall thereafter be governed in accordance with the decision taken
by the Association.

iv.

Failing to comply with the above-said directions by the parties shall attract penal action
in accordance with Section 63 of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016.

57.

In view of the above, the present complaint is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

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

Page 12 of 12

---