Order Complaint No.63 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.63 OF 2024
28th August, 2024
Corum:

Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member

Mr. Prasenjit Das

…Complainant

Versus
M/s Mehta & Modi Realty Knowkoor LLP
Mr. Suraj Prakash Pandey
…Respondent(s)
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing on 02.05.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant
and counsel M.A.Lateef for Respondent 1 and no representation made on
behalf of Respondent 2, upon hearing the arguments of the both the parties,
this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
“RE(R&D) Act” read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking
directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondent.
A. Brief Facts on behalf of the complainant:
3.

The Complainant, an individual, purchased a residential flat, Flat No.

506, on the fifth floor in Block B, through an agreement of sale executed on
the 11th day of November 2019 and a sale deed on the 9th day of December
2022. The flat is part of the layout developed by Respondent No. 1 under the
name and style of "Greenwood Heights," consisting of 119 flats, further
comprising Block A and Block B in the layout located in Sy No. 196, Hislop
Road, Kowkur, Alwal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Secunderabad1 of 10

500010. The "Greenwood Heights" project is a "Housing Project" registered by
Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the RERA Act. The said Housing
Project is ongoing and proposed to be completed by 21/09/2025.
4.

The Complainant took possession of the aforementioned flat on 25th

February 2023, as evidenced by the possession letter dated 25/02/2023
(Annexure-I) issued by Respondent No. 1. After taking possession, the
Complainant discovered the unauthorized installation of a toilet drainage pipe
passing through his balcony, which is private space meant exclusively for the
Complainant’s use. It is submitted that Respondent No. 1 constructed a toilet
in the portion earmarked for the balcony on the seventh floor of Flat No. 706,
which is located directly above the Complainant’s Flat No. 506 in the same
block (Block B). This flat is owned by Respondent No. 2, and the said drainage
pipe from the toilet installed by Respondent No. 1 passes through the
Complainant's balcony without any legal authorization or consent from the
Complainant.
5.

Respondent No. 2, in an email dated 17th June 2023 (Annexure-II),

admitted to the Complainant that he had requested Respondent No. 1 to
construct a toilet in the portion earmarked for the balcony, for which he paid
an additional amount. The construction of this additional toilet on the balcony
is wholly illegal, as it deviates from the original sanctioned plan.
6.

It is further submitted that Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 have made an

unauthorized deviation from the original sanctioned plan by constructing a
toilet in the portion earmarked for the balcony. Moreover, a drainage pipe
from this toilet has been installed, passing through the Complainant’s
balcony, causing significant inconvenience and discomfort. The said drainage
pipe obstructs the Complainant's use and enjoyment of his property.
7.

Respondent No. 1 provided the Complainant with the sanctioned plan

approved by the GHMC during the sale of the property, in which no
communication regarding the construction of an additional toilet on the
balcony was given. It is submitted that the toilet was constructed and the
2 of 10

drainage pipe installed after the property had been sold to the Complainant,
rendering such construction wholly illegal and without proper authorization
or consent from the Complainant. This unauthorized construction constitutes
trespass and interference with the Complainant's exclusive rights over his
property.

The

installation

of

the

drainage

pipe

infringes

upon

the

Complainant's rights as the property owner and violates applicable building
regulations framed by the GHMC and the Government. The installation of the
drainage pipe poses potential risks of sewage water leakage, damage, and
compromise of the structural integrity of the building, which may lead to
further damage and liabilities. Additionally, it not only has the potential to
affect the health of the Complainant and his family members but also violates
the Complainant’s religious sentiments. Such unauthorized construction may
also pose difficulties in finding a potential buyer if the Complainant wishes to
sell his flat in the future.
8.

Section 14 of the RERA Act, 2016, mandates that all construction

projects must be developed and completed by the promoter in accordance
with the sanctioned plans, layout plans, and specifications approved by the
competent authorities. Furthermore, any additions or alterations to the
sanctioned plans, layout, and specifications require the prior consent of the
owner. The construction of the additional toilet and the installation of the
drainage pipe through the Complainant’s property are clear violations of this
section.
9.

It is further submitted that, as per the National Building Code of India,

2016, all construction projects must adhere to the sanctioned plans, layout,
and specifications approved by the competent authorities. Any additions or
alterations to these plans and specifications require the prior consent of the
owner. The installation of the drainage pipe through the Complainant's
property is a violation of these regulations. Additionally, the National Building
Code specifies that all pipes carrying wastewater to a drain should be taken
through the external wall of the building by the shortest practical route. The
current construction, which passes through the Complainant’s balcony
instead of the external wall, further violates the Complainant's property
3 of 10

rights. Moreover, the drainage pipe poses significant threats to the
Complainant's health, peaceful use of his property, and the environment.
B. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT:
10.

In view of the facts mentioned in paragraph 4 above, the Complainant

prays for the following relief(s):
1. Removal of the unauthorized drainage pipe passing through the
Complainant’s balcony.
2. Demolition of the toilet that has been constructed in violation of the
sanctioned plan.
3. Restoration of the affected areas to their original condition, ensuring no
damage during the removal process.
4. Adherence to the original plan as sanctioned by the GHMC.
5. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards legal expenses, for hurting the
Complainant’s religious sentiments, and for wasting valuable time.
6. Pass such other order or orders as this Authority deems fit.
C. Respondent Reply:
11.

It is submitted that all the allegations and averments mentioned in the

complaint, and they deny the same, except where specifically admitted herein.
The complaint is not maintainable, either on facts or in law, and has been
filed with false and frivolous allegations. Therefore, the complaint is liable to
be dismissed with exemplary costs.
i.

The Respondent is a reputed developer with over 30 years of experience
in the construction of houses and flats in and around the twin cities of
Hyderabad and Secunderabad.

ii.

It is submitted that by a letter dated 29-12-2022, this Respondent
informed the Complainant that the flat was ready for possession. The
Complainant inspected the flat and requested certain corrections by
email dated 30th January 2023. Furthermore, the Complainant sent
another list of corrections by email dated 24th February 2023.
4 of 10

iii.

It is submitted that by December 2022, the work on Flat No. B-706 was
fully completed. The civil work on Flat No. B-606 was completed;
however, the finishing works were not undertaken as the flat was
unsold. The pipeline that the Complainant refers to in the present
complaint was already in existence in his flat as of December 2022.

iv.

It is submitted that the Complainant took possession of his flat by way
of a possession letter dated 25-02-2023. The Complainant further
signed a letter of confirmation, wherein he clearly confirmed in Point
No. 4, "We have no claim of whatsoever nature against the developer."
In Point No. 6, the Complainant also confirmed that he had no objection
to any development being carried out by the developer in and around
the said flat. Additionally, in Point No. 7, the Complainant confirmed
that he had no objection to changes in the design of the housing
project, including other flats or blocks of flats.

v.

It is submitted that the Complainant raised an objection about the
sewage pipe passing through the balcony of his flat for the first time on
22nd March 2023, almost a month after taking possession of the flat.

vi.

It is submitted that the Complainant issued a legal notice dated
30.05.2023 through his advocate, for which this Respondent provided a
befitting reply dated 21.06.2023.

vii.

It is submitted that Greenwood Heights is a "group housing scheme" as
per the permit received from statutory authorities. The group housing
scheme consists of 119 apartments with two basements for parking and
seven upper floors. Such a group housing scheme necessarily includes
several common amenities and facilities for the joint use of its
occupants, which cannot be separated or made for exclusive use.

viii.

It is submitted that stormwater pipes, sewage pipes, and water supply
pipes cannot be made for exclusive use. These pipelines in an
apartment complex or group housing scheme are provided as part of a
common infrastructure. They necessarily crisscross throughout the
complex, including common areas like passages, terraces, external
walls of flats, along internal walls of flats, from the ceiling of bathrooms
and utility areas, basement floors, setback areas, etc. It is impossible to
5 of 10

provide exclusive pipelines for each flat that do not pass through other
areas of the housing complex.
ix.

It is further submitted that the sewage lines of the flat above each flat
pass through the roof of the flat below it (copy of photo enclosed). This
is by design and is the most common practice. Similarly, several sewage
and water supply lines pass through the utility area of all the flats. The
stormwater line to drain water from each balcony passes through the
balconies on all floors. Strangely, the Complainant is objecting to the
sewage line passing through his balcony but has no objection to the
stormwater line passing through his balcony next to the sewage line
(copies of photographs are attached).

x.

It is submitted that this Respondent, on several occasions, offered to
enclose the sewage pipe with granite on all three sides to make it 100%
waterproof and leakproof, as has already been done in other flats in the
same row of the building (copy of photo enclosed). However, the
Complainant has not agreed to the same.

xi.

It is submitted that the construction has been completed in accordance
with the permitted plans (copies of plans enclosed). There is no
unauthorized construction or deviation by this Respondent. For the
kind

satisfaction

of

your

respected

authority,

we

request

the

appointment of a technical person to inspect the site and provide a
report.
12.

The entire allegations in the complaint and pleadings are made without

any basis. The Complainant has made baseless allegations against the
Respondent and approached this authority with unclean hands, with the
intention of gaining unlawfully and harassing this Respondent. Therefore,
respectfully request that authority dismiss the present complaint with
exemplary costs.
E. Rejoinder
13.

The Complainant, in their rejoinder, has vehemently denied all factual

assertions made by Respondent No.1 in their reply dated 13.03.2024,
6 of 10

deeming them to be misleading, false, and devoid of truth. The Complainant
specifically refutes the Respondent’s characterization of the present case as
"false and frivolous," arguing that this assertion is an attempt by the
Respondent to expedite the sale of unsold flats by constructing additional
toilet facilities without proper authorization.
14.

The Complainant has provided evidence (Annexure-I) showing that

additional toilets have been constructed within the same block (B) on portions
designated as balconies, which were enclosed and converted into toilets.
Further, the Complainant contests the Respondent’s claim that construction
was completed according to the permitted plans, pointing out that other
residents, such as the owners of Flat B106 and Flat B406, have also raised
objections to unauthorized installations of toilet pipes passing through their
balconies (Annexure-II and Annexure-III).
15.

Additionally, the Complainant denies the Respondent’s claim that the

pipeline referenced in their reply was in existence as of December 2022,
asserting that it was installed after the property was purchased but before
possession was taken. The Complainant argues that the possession letter
dated 25.02.2023 should not be construed as an authorization for the
unsanctioned installation of a toilet drainage pipeline through their balcony,
which is considered private property, not a common area.
16.

The Complainant further disputes the Respondent's references to the

Greenwood Heights housing scheme’s common infrastructure, asserting that
while such infrastructure may traverse common areas, this does not justify
the installation of a toilet drainage pipe through a privately owned balcony.
The Complainant emphasizes that this installation violates both their property
rights and the sanctioned plans, which did not include an additional toilet or
the associated drainage pipeline (Annexure-IV).
17.

In support of their position, the Complainant refers to Section 14 of the

RERA Act, 2016, which mandates that construction projects must be
developed in accordance with sanctioned plans, and any alterations require

7 of 10

prior consent from the owner. The Complainant contends that the Respondent
has violated this section by installing the toilet drainage pipe without consent.
18.

The Complainant also references the National Building Code of India,

2016, highlighting that it mandates strict adherence to sanctioned plans and
requires that wastewater pipes be directed through external walls, not private
property like a balcony. The Complainant underscores the potential health
risks associated with the unauthorized installation, including concerns
related to COVID-19 transmission, as supported by a research paper enclosed
as Annexure-VII.
19.

The Complainant concludes by urging the Honorable Authority to

consider

the

evidence

and

arguments

presented,

asserting

that

the

Respondent's actions have violated their property rights and pose potential
health hazards. They seek a resolution in accordance with the law to rectify
the infringements on their rights.
F. Observations and Directions of the Authority:
20.

Upon hearing the submissions of the parties and thoroughly examining

the record, it is evident from the possession letter dated 25.02.2023, a copy of
which has been furnished by the Complainant, that the Respondent
transferred possession of the concerned property to the Complainant in the
year 2023. This fact remains uncontroverted by either party.
21.

The Complainant has raised a grievance regarding the Respondent's 1

failure to rectify deficiencies in the subject unit, specifically alleging that the
Respondent has unauthorizedly installed a drainage pipeline that traverses
through the balcony.
22.

In support of this contention, the Complainant has relied on a sanction

plans obtained by the Respondent 1 which pertains to concerned project. The
Complainant has also annexed photographic evidence depicting the drainage
pipeline placed in his balcony and unit 706 balcony which he asserts was
illegally installed by the Respondent.

8 of 10

23.

Based on the Complainant’s assertions, it appears that the drainage

pipeline passing through the balcony is not in accordance with the sanctioned
plan obtained by the Respondent 1. The Complainant’s attempts to address
this issue with the Respondent 1 through emails, legal notices, and other
communications have, as per the record, elicited no remedial action from the
Respondent to date. In its reply submitted to this Authority, the Respondent 1
contended that stormwater pipes, water supply pipes, and sewage pipes in an
apartment complex or group housing scheme are common infrastructure
elements that must, of necessity, crisscross throughout the complex and no
deviations as alleged by the Complainant has taken place.
24.

After a careful examination of the complaint, the counter affidavit filed

by the Respondent, and the rejoinder submitted by the parties, this Authority
observes the following:
a) The sanctioned plan of the project does not authorize the construction of a
powder room in Unit 706, yet the Respondent 1 has constructed such a room,
resulting in the installation of a drainage pipeline that traverses the
Complainant's balcony. The Respondent’s actions are therefore in clear
deviation from the sanctioned plan.
b) The Authority is of the considered opinion that the presence of the drainage
pipeline in the Complainant's balcony poses potential future risks, including
but not limited to leakage, health hazards, and other related issues. Such a
deviation is manifestly unfair to the Complainant, who did not consent to any
alterations from the sanctioned plan.
25.

In accordance with Section 14(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016, it is incumbent upon the Promoter to develop and
complete the project strictly in conformity with the sanctioned plans, layout
plans, and specifications as approved by the competent authorities.
26.

Accordingly, this Authority concludes that Respondent No. 1 has

deviated from the sanctioned plan, thereby contravening the provisions of
Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It is
further determined that the placement of the drainage pipeline in the
9 of 10

Complainant's balcony is a direct result of such deviation. Consequently,
Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to remove the drainage pipeline from the
Complainant's balcony within 30 days from the date of this Order.
27.

The Authority observes that the complainant is seeking compensation

in the present complaint. It is essential to understand that the Act clearly
distinguishes between interest and compensation, providing them as distinct
entitlements available to allottees. This Authority does not possess the
jurisdiction or authority to grant compensation as specifically sought by the
complainant. The complainant shall have the liberty to approach Adjudicating
Officer under Form N.
28.

For contravention section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act, the Authority

exercising its powers under Section 61 of the RE(R&D) Act, imposes a penalty
on Respondent 1 of Rs.9,81,506/-. The amount is payable in favor of TGRERA
FUND

through

a

Demand

Draft

or

online

payment

to

A/c

No.

50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036, within 30 days of
receipt of this Order by the Respondents/Promoter.
29.

The Respondent 1 is hereby informed that failure to comply with this

Order shall attract Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
30.

In the result, the complaint is disposed of. However, having regard to

facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
31.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the Telangana Real

Estate Appellate as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

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

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

10 of 10