Order Complaint No.51 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
14th Day of July 2025
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.51 OF 2024
…Complainant

Sri Srinivasulu Bode
(Flat No.304, Block 3, DivyaShreeshakthi Apartments,
Mayuri Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad- 500049)

Versus
M/s Ashritha Group

Represented through its Authorised Representative
(Plot No.8, Road No. 73, Navanirman Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyd-500033)

…Respondent

COMPLAINT NO.52 OF 2024
…Complainant

Smt. C. Malleswari Nandireddy
(Flat No.304, Block 3, DivyaShreeshakthi Apartments,
Mayuri Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad- 500049)

Versus
M/s Ashritha Group
Represented through its Authorised Representative
(Plot No.8, Road No. 73, Navanirman Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyd-500033)

…Respondent

The present matters filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of Complainants in person, and learned Counsel for Respondent. Sri
M. Bala Subramanyam and Sri Sandeep Pilli and upon hearing submissions made by both
parties, and the matter reserved over for consideration till this date, this Authority passes
present Complaints ORDER:
2.

The present Complaints have been filed by the Complainants 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 reliefs against the Respondent.

1 of 12

---

The Complainants submitted that they had entered into an agreement of sale dated

27.09.2021 with Sri V. Madhusudhana and others (Landowner/Vendor) for the purchase of an
apartment (Flat No. 907, C-Block and Flat No. 910, C-Block) in a residential project titled
"Jewels County," which was approved by HMDA and registered with TG RERA bearing Regn.
No.P01100002614 dated 23.02.2021. The Complainants asserted that the Respondent failed to
honour the agreement of sale by retracting earlier payment receipts and issuing new ones,
thereby creating confusion and failing to adhere to the agreed terms.
4.

The Complainants further submitted that they had served two notices, both through

registered post and email, requesting the Respondent to fulfil their contractual obligations.
However, the Respondent, in response, issued a reply legal notice rejecting the Complainants’
claims, threatening to cancel the agreement of sale, and advising the Complainants to approach
the Builder for issue resolution.
5.

The Complainants stated that they addressed a rejoinder within seven days, requesting

the Respondent to allow direct communication. That despite repeated efforts, which included
several visits to the Respondent’s office and multiple phone calls, the Respondent did not
respond, and Complainants’ attempts to resolve the matter remained unanswered.
6.

It was also asserted by the Complainants that the Respondent exerted pressure on them

to default on payment terms, thereby enabling the Respondent to unilaterally initiate
cancellation of the agreement of sale. The Complainants submitted that after exhausting all
reasonable avenues for resolution, they approached the Authority seeking relief to direct the
Respondent to comply with the terms of the agreement, process the bank loans, and ensure
adherence to the agreed conditions of sale.

B. Reply on behalf of the Respondent to the main complaint:
7.

The Respondent, vide a detailed reply, submitted that Respondent entered into an

Agreement of Sale with the Complainants on mutually agreed terms and conditions. It was
further submitted that it is the complainant first, who breached the payment terms and
conditions of the agreement and been threatening the Respondent of approaching the Court to
gain wrongfully. That the Respondent was always ready and been willing to honor the terms
and conditions in the Agreement. Whereas it is the Complainants who are demanding to vary
from the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and on refusal of the same, the Complainants
had approached this Authority.
2 of 12

---

The Respondent further submitted that it had obtained requisite permissions for the

construction of a Residential building/Apartments from HMDA vide permission No.
030870/SKP/RS/U6/HMDA/22112019 Dt:08/01/dated 2021,& RERA Registration No.
P01100002614. That initially, the Complainants orally agreed to purchase a Flat Nos.C-907 &
C-910, admeasuring 1322 Sq.ft. (Flat No.C-907) and 1302 Sq.ft. (Flat No.C-910), a 2BHK in
the Project named as “JEWELS COUNTY” for out rite price mutually agreed, with a payment
condition that such sale consideration shall be paid in full i.e., without instalment, and made
believe the Respondent that they shall abide to the payment terms paying an advance of Rs.
10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs Only) for each flat promising to pay the balance amount in next
15 days.
9.

The Complainant, upon the Respondent’s refusal to execute a regular Agreement of

Sale on par with other customers, induced the Respondent to believe in his good faith under a
"Gentleman’s Agreement." Relying on this assurance, the Respondent proceeded with the
Agreement, albeit with terms deviating from the original oral agreement.
10.

It was submitted that however, the Complainants defaulted the same without notice and

refused to accept to enter into a fresh Agreement of Sale with Payment terms in instalments
similar to the other customers. That when Respondent called for meetings several times to
conclude the discussions providing ample opportunities to close the sale with payment terms
orally agreed, the Complainants did not respond.
11.

It was submitted that the Complainants also utterly failed to honour the payment terms

and conditions of the Agreement of sale entered in September 2021 and alleged that the
Respondent is demanding additional amount, which is false, frivolous, concocted story. That,
the Complainants further, ignored the project update mails and had approached this Authority
making false allegations. That, the Complainants also had utterly failed to honour the terms
and conditions therein agreed in the terms and conditions of the Agreement of sale, in spite of
several mails updating the progress of the project from time to time, and demanding the
amount.
12.

The Respondent submitted that the Clause 1.2 of the Agreement of Sale Pg.5 states as

below:
“...1.2 If the Purchaser fails to pay the amounts mentioned in the above clause then
automatically this agreement stands cancelled without any intimation and 15% of the
sale amount of the Schedule Property shall be forfeited and adjusted towards
damages..........”
3 of 12

---

The Respondent submitted that reading the above clause, it is very clear that on default

of payment instalment by the purchaser/Complainants, the agreement of sale stands cancelled.
However, the Respondent had given enough opportunities to the Complainants to pay the
amounts and as there was no response from the Complainants, based on the above clause and
default of the Complainant, the Respondent had advised Complainant over telephone to collect
the refund immediately and they shall not be responsible for any interest of amount from such
date. It was submitted that, however, the Complainants restrained themselves to approach the
Respondent. That therefore, Complainants have no right to claim for registration of the said
allotted flat to him and claim any damages from the Respondent for their own voluntary fault.
Also it was submitted that, such wrongful conduct of the Complainants is voluntary, therefore,
they cannot demand the Respondent to honour the terms and Conditions of the Agreement of
Sale.

C. Rejoinder on behalf of the Complainant:
14.

The Complainants, in response to the Counter filed by the Respondent, submitted that

it is admitted that, the Complainants and Respondent entered agreement of sale dated 27-092021 for purchase of Flat Nos.C-907 & C-910 on 9th Floor of 'C' Block in the multi-storied
residential apartment known as "JEWELS COUNTY". The Complainants submitted that as per
clause 1 of agreement of sale, the Complainants, respectively, paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) by way of cheques in the year 2019 & 2021 which is admitted by
the Respondent.
15.

It was further submitted that as per clause 1.1 of agreement of sale dated 27.09.2021, it

was mutually agreed that, the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.19,68,740/- was to
be paid in the following manner
a. After completion of 2nd cellar slab will be 12% of total sale value
b. After completion of 1st Floor will be 10% of total sale value.
c. After completion of 3rd Floor will be 10% of total sale value.
d. After completion of 6th Floor will be 10% of total sale value
e. After completion of 10th Floor will be 10% of total sale value.
f. After Brick work will be 10% of total sale value
g. Balance amount will be paid at the time of registration.
16.

That as per clause 1.3 of the agreement of sale, the Respondent shall issue two notices

to the purchaser demanding the payment and upon the failure of the purchaser to comply with
4 of 12

---

The Complainants submitted that it is false to state that, the Complainants entered oral

agreement and agreed to pay out right price and requesting them to provide agreement of sale
for bank loan and Respondent signed the varied terms and conditions of oral agreement and
later refused to enter into fresh agreement of sale is false and the Respondent pleading against
their own documents. They submitted that the Complainants paid amount at the time of entering
agreement in the year 2021. That, Complainant in Complaint No.52/2024 entered into an
agreement with the Respondent in the year 2019 for purchase of villa and due to failure of the
construction of the said villa, a fresh agreement was entered into which is an afterthought of
the Respondent for enhancing price of the flat which is the main crux for the dispute.
18.

The Complainants submitted that it is incorrect to state that the Complainants failed to

honour the agreement of sale. The Respondent created an app under the name and style of
"ASHRITHA" and furnished the project update on monthly basis which reflects the mala-fides
of the Respondent. That, on 19.01.2022, the Respondent sent a mail disclosing that the project
approved by HMDA and RERA and 14 months completed and they completed the columns
and footings at basement level. The Complainants received mail on 17.12.2022 in which the
Respondent disclosed that they completed C-Block Grade Slab construction work and
requested customers to contact CRM department. On 05.02.2023, the Respondent sent one
mail with regard to information providing bank loan to the customers and necessary documents
and advised to meet CRM.
19.

It was submitted that, in pursuance of E-mail dated 05.02.2023, the Complainants met

the CRM and the CRM informed that, the Respondent is not honouring the existing agreement
of sale. The Complainants addressed letter dated 10.02.2023 to the Respondent and the same
was sent to the Respondent through registered post and E-mail. The letter date 10.02.2023 was
returned as unclaimed and E-mail was received. It was further submitted that, the Respondent
sent mail on 16.03.2023 and informed that, C-Block footings and Grade slab and the 1st cellar
(B-3 slab) have been completed and now 2nd and 3rd cellar slabs are being under progress
simultaneously and further informed that customers are always referring to their earlier
agreement and post covid prices are soared hike. It was further submitted that, the
Complainants issued reply mail on 23.03.2023 by attaching the 2nd letter dated 01.03.2023 and
informed that, the Complainant is ready for bank loan processing and significant delay on the
part of the Respondent.
5 of 12

---

It was submitted that as per the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2021, the Complainants

are liable to pay 10% after completion of 2nd cellar slab and as per the email dated 16.03.2023
they clearly admitted 1st cellar is completed. However, the Respondent issued reply legal
notice dated 23.03.2023 and making allegation of balance payment and terminated the
agreement of the Complainants. It was further submitted that, the Complainants issued
rejoinder legal notice date 05.04.2023 in which the Complainants informed that the payment
to be paid after completion of 2nd cellar.
21.

The Complainants submitted that it is false that Respondent gave any opportunity to

the Complainants to pay the amounts and telephonically informed to collect the refund. The
Complainants, therefore, prayed to direct the Respondent to follow the terms and conditions of
agreement of sale dated 27.09.2021 and register the document in favour of the Complainant by
collecting amounts as per the agreement of sale.

D. IAs filed by Complainants
22.

The Complainant filed I.A. No.39/2024 in Complaint No.51/2024 and I.A. No.40/2024

in Complaint No.52/2024, submitting that the Complainants agreed to purchase Flat No.C-907
(east facing) and Flat No.C-910 (west facing) in the residential apartment "JEWEL COUNTY"
on 9th floor, admeasuring 1322 Sq.ft. (Flat No.C-907) and 1302 Sq.ft. (Flat No.C-910) along
with un-divided share of land admeasuring 32.31 Sq.yards (Flat No.C-907) and 31.82 Sq.yards
(Flat No.C-910) out of the total land in Sy.No.229/A1/1, 229/ΑΑ, 229/A, 243/A, 236, 229/A2,
243/AA2, 243/A & 243/AA & 229/AA along with all amenities & one car parking and bike
parking. Accordingly, the Complainants paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards
Flat No.C-907 and Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards Flat No.C-910 to the
Respondent as advance sale consideration.

Subsequently, the Respondent entered into

Agreement of Sale with the Complainants on 27.09.2021. However, the Complainants
submitted that the Respondent is demanding higher price for the purchase of the said flats due
to increase of land rates in utter disregard and violation to the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016.
23.

It was submitted that in view of the conduct of the Respondent, there is every possibility

of selling the above-mentioned Flats to third parties without disclosing the agreement of sale
entered with the Complainants, to their detriment and loss. Therefore, it was prayed to direct
the Respondent not to create third party rights on Flat Nos.C-907 & C-910 in the Project
"JEWEL COUNTY" till the final disposal of the present complaints.
6 of 12

---

Vide Reply to the I.A. No.39/2024 in Complaint No.51/2024 and I.A. No.40/2024 in

Complaint No.52/2024, the Respondent submitted that Respondent is abiding to the terms and
conditions of the Agreement of Sale entered between Complainants and Respondent. The
Respondent further submitted that allegations made against the Respondent are false and
frivolous and are made to gain wrongfully to coverup their default in paying the amounts as
per the Agreement of Sale causing damage and monetary loss to the Respondent.
25.

It was submitted that the Respondent never demanded higher sale consideration than

specified in the Agreement of sale but informed to the Complainants that the Agreement of
Sale had been cancelled on default of payment in time in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement of sale and also advised the Complainants to collect the refund amount they are
entitled to.
26.

It was submitted that as per the Agreement of sale dated 27.09.2021, it is the

Complainants who breached the terms and conditions and thereby, as per the clause 1.2, the
Agreement of Sale dated 27.09.2021 stands cancelled, and the allotted flat falls back to the
Respondent with all rights to sell, alienate, lease or whatsoever as that of having full title and
ownership in all aspects.
27.

Further it was submitted, that, as per the Clause 1.2 of the Agreement of Sale, the said

Agreement is cancelled by virtue of non-payment of the instalments as agreed in the above
clauses, and with such cancellation, which is very much in knowledge and knowing the
repercussion of such breach of the agreement had acted deliberately in refusing to pay the
instalment, and thereby, the Respondent having all rights vested on such cancellation, had
already entered into an Agreement of Sale of the flats with third party.
28.

It was submitted that it is settled principle of law that when there is no evidence to show

the prima facia case of their legal rights and also the alleged cause of action for their filing of
instant I.A. and complaint, the question of considering the I.A does not arise. It is the applicant's
bounden duty to show prima facie case to obtain any interim relief. Therefore, the Respondent
prayed that the Complainants are not entitled for any relief in the above I.A., which is filed
without validity and to dismiss the same. He also submitted that non-granting of any relief to
the Complainants would not cause any loss or damage at any point of time as the Respondent
was always ready to refund the amount to the Complainants well before the complaint was
lodged.
7 of 12

---

After due deliberation to the facts and circumstances of the complaints and the

supporting documents thereof, the following questions arise for consideration by this
Authority:
I.

Whether the Respondent or the Complainants failed to adhere to the terms of the
Agreements of Sale?
II. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief sought? If yes, to what extent?
G. Observations of the Authority:
30.

The Authority has carefully examined the submissions, documents, and arguments

presented by both the Complainants and the Respondent. Upon thorough consideration, certain
crucial aspects have emerged that warrant deliberation.
Point I
31.

It stands admitted that the Complainants entered into Agreements of Sale dated

27.09.2021 with the Respondent in respect of Flat Nos. C-907 and C-910 in the residential
project titled Jewels County, duly registered under RERA vide Registration No.
P01100002614. The agreed sale consideration for each unit was Rs. 29,68,740/- (Rupees
Twenty-Nine Lakhs Sixty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Only), inclusive of
clubhouse charges, and an advance of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) was paid by
each Complainant at the time of execution of the Agreements.
32.

The Complainants have alleged that the Respondent obstructed the discharge of their

contractual obligations by refusing to accept further instalments routed through bank loan
disbursements. It is the Complainants case that despite repeated requests through e-mails dated
10.02.2023, 01.03.2023, and 23.03.2023 they urged the Respondent to accept the payments as
per the schedule linked to construction milestones, duly set out in the Agreement of Sale.
Notably, the Complainants sought adherence to the payment trigger point of 12% payable after
completion of the 2nd cellar slab, as per the agreed milestone.
33.

In corroboration of their stand, the Complainants produced an e-mail dated 16.03.2023

issued by the Respondent, wherein it was clearly acknowledged that while the 1st cellar slab
(B-3) had been completed, the 2nd and 3rd cellar slabs were still under progress. Thus, the very
trigger for the next payment had not arisen, rendering the Respondent’s refusal to accept bank
loan disbursements untenable and contrary to the agreed schedule.

34.

The Respondent, in their defence, relied on Clause 1.2 of the Agreements of Sale, which

provides:
8 of 12

---

If the purchaser fails to pay the amounts mentioned in the above clause,

then automatically this agreement stands cancelled without any intimation and
15% of the sale amount of schedule property shall be forfeited and adjusted
towards damages. Balance amount shall be transferred to the Purchaser’s
Account within 90 days from the date of default. The Purchaser ceases to have
any rights of whatsoever nature over the flat, the moment the refund amount
credited to his account, in such an event the flat shall be allotted to any other
prospective purchaser.”
35.

However, Clause 1.3 of the same agreement lays down an essential precondition for

invoking Clause 1.2, stating:
“1.3

If the purchaser fails to make the payment as agreed in clause 1.1 Sub-

clause (a) to (g), the Land Owner/Developer shall issue two notices to the
Purchaser demanding the payment and upon the failure of the purchaser to comply
with the notices, the Land Owner/Developer shall be at liberty to proceed as per
the terms of clause 1.2 of this agreement.”
The Authority observes that the issuance of two written notices is a mandatory procedural
safeguard envisaged by Clause 1.3, and non-compliance with the same disentitles the
Respondent from invoking the cancellation clause under Clause 1.2.
36.

The Respondent has argued that the Complainants sought to renegotiate the payment

terms by requesting to make staggered payments post an e-mail dated 05.02.2023 issued to all
customers. However, this argument lacks evidentiary substantiation. No documentation or
written communication has been placed on record to demonstrate a binding novation of contract
or mutual modification of payment terms. Oral assertions in this regard remain uncorroborated.
37.

On the contrary, the documentary evidence placed by the Complainants, including

photographs and e-mail exchanges, clearly establishes that the construction milestone
completion of the 2nd cellar slab was not achieved, and therefore, the Complainants were under
no obligation to release the subsequent instalment at the time the Respondent demanded. The
Respondent has not disputed the status of construction nor filed contrary evidence. Thus, no
breach can be attributed to the Complainants.
38.

On the issue of cancellation, the Authority finds that no notices were issued to the

Complainants as mandated under Clause 1.3. The unilateral cancellation of the Agreements,
absent such notices, is patently in violation of the contract. Moreover, it is contrary to Section
11(5) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, which mandates that:
9 of 12

---

The Respondent’s defence, based on an alleged oral agreement wherein the

Complainants purportedly agreed to pay the entire sale consideration in one instalment, is both
speculative and legally unsustainable. No written record, e-mail, or signed memorandum
substantiating such a deviation from the executed Agreement has been produced. Furthermore,
the Respondent's simultaneous reliance on contractual clauses (Clause 1.2 and 1.3) to justify
cancellation further militates against their own claim of an oral supersession of the agreement.
This self-contradiction is indicative of an afterthought.
40.

The Respondent cannot, on one hand, rely on the formal Agreement to effect

cancellation, while, on the other hand, seek to invalidate the payment schedule laid out in the
very same document. Such selective adherence to contractual provisions is impermissible. This
clearly indicates that there was no such binding oral understanding between the parties, and the
Respondent’s actions are unilateral, arbitrary, and in breach of both the Agreement and
statutory mandate.
41.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Respondent has wrongfully and unilaterally

cancelled the Agreements of Sale dated 27.09.2021, without issuance of mandatory notices
under Clause 1.3 and in contravention of Section 11(5) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The stand
taken by the Respondent is found to be inconsistent, unsubstantiated, and contrary to both fact
and law.
42.

Point I is accordingly answered in the affirmative. The Authority holds that the

Respondent is in breach of the contractual and statutory obligations and has illegally cancelled
the Agreements of Sale dated 27.09.2021 without following the due procedure, thereby
rendering the cancellation null and void in law.

Point II
43.

The Complainants have contended that the Respondent deliberately impeded their

ability to fulfil their contractual obligations by refusing to accept payments through bank loan
disbursements, despite the express stipulation under the Agreements of Sale dated 27.09.2021
that payments were to be made in accordance with the construction-linked payment schedule.
10 of 12

---

However, as already concluded under Point I, the Respondent’s invocation of Clause

1.2 is rendered legally untenable, owing to non-compliance with Clause 1.3 which
unequivocally mandates the issuance of two prior notices to the purchaser before any
cancellation action. The Authority has already held that the Respondent’s action, being in
breach of this prescribed procedure, constitutes a violation of the contractual terms and is
contrary to the mandate under Section 11(5) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
45.

This Authority finds it necessary to reiterate the settled position in law that mere

assertions in pleadings or affidavits do not constitute proof. The burden of proof lies squarely
upon the party alleging the existence of third-party rights or transactions. Assertions
unsupported by cogent documentary or admissible evidence are legally insufficient to defeat
subsisting contractual rights. The Respondent, being the party asserting such transactions, must
discharge this burden.
46.

However, the Respondent has failed to place on record any documentary evidence such

as registered sale deeds, agreements for sale, or any contemporaneous correspondence
demonstrating bona fide third-party transactions. In the absence of such evidence, this
Authority is constrained to hold that the rights of the Complainants under the Agreements of
Sale dated 27.09.2021 continue to subsist and remain legally enforceable. The Respondent's
self-serving assertions cannot displace the vested legal entitlements of the Complainants.
47.

Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the Respondent had purportedly created third-

party rights, such transactions would be void ab initio, having been executed in violation of the
Agreement and without lawfully terminating the Complainants' contracts. The Respondent's
conduct, in this context, amounts to unjust enrichment and constitutes a further breach of
Section 11(5) of the RE(R&D)Act, 2016.
48.

In light of the foregoing findings, this Authority is of the considered view that the

Complainants are legally entitled to seek enforcement of the Agreements of Sale dated
27.09.2021.
49.

Accordingly, Point II is answered in the affirmative. The Authority holds that the

Complainants are entitled to specific performance of the Agreements of Sale dated 27.09.2021.
The unilateral cancellation effected by the Respondent and any purported alienation of the
subject flats in contravention of the said Agreements is unsustainable in law.

11 of 12

---

In exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 37 and 38 of the RE(R&D) Act,

2016, and in view of the findings and conclusions recorded hereinabove, the Authority hereby
issues the following directions:
a. The Respondent is directed to register the subject flats in favour of the Complainants,
subject to receipt of amounts due from the Complainants in accordance with the
milestone-based payment schedule stipulated in the Agreements of Sale dated 27.09.2021.
b. The Respondent is held liable for violation of Section 11(5) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
and is accordingly directed to pay a penalty of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only)
under Section 61 of the Act, 2016. The said amount shall be remitted within a period of
30 (thirty) days from the date of this order to the TGRERA FUND through a Demand
Draft or online payment to A/c No. 50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code:
HDFC0007036;
51.

The parties are hereby informed that non-compliance with the above directions shall

attract further action and penalty under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
52.

In view of the foregoing findings and directions, the complaints are partly allowed and

stand disposed of accordingly. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
53.

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

12 of 12

---