A Hyderabad woman booked a 3,600-sq-ft villa for Rs 2.14 crore after being promised delivery within six months. She paid Rs 79 lakh upfront for it but the project has remained under construction till now.She approached Telangana RERA, which on August 20, 2026, ruled in her favour in an ex-parte case after both the builder and the real estate agent failed to appear despite receiving notices.Here is what her case is about why Telangana RERA ruled in her favour:
What the case is about
The woman living in Hyderabad, was looking to purchase a villa when she approached a real estate agent. The agent introduced her to a builder, who presented details of his upcoming villa project in Pasumamula Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy.The builder told the woman after the presentation that the villa could be completed and handed over within about six months of the agreement if she made an advance payment immediately.Relying on the presentation and the real estate agent’s recommendation, she booked villa number 85. The property measured 3,600 square feet and was priced at Rs 2.14 crore. She paid Rs 79 lakh towards the advance through different modes of payment.The sale agreement was executed on February 5, 2024. She expected to receive the completed villa in 2025 or, at the latest, during the first half of 2026. However, even by August 2026, construction of the villa had not been completed.She subsequently approached the Telangana Real Estate Tribunal (TSRERA), naming both the builder and the real estate agent as parties to the proceedings.She included the agent in the case because, according to her, he was the person who introduced her to the builder and was familiar with the project in his capacity as the real estate agent involved in the sale of the villa.The matter was decided ex-parte after neither the agent nor the builder appeared to contest the case despite receiving notices from Telangana RERA.On August 20, 2026, Kumari secured a favourable order from the Telangana RERA bench.
Why did the homebuyer win the case?
Pooja Rao Putrevu, Founder of Annex Legal, told ET that the homebuyer succeeded in her case primarily on account of three factors.The first was the builder’s failure to obtain RERA registration, which is mandatory under the TSRERA regulations. The second was the carrying out of marketing and advertising activities for the project without the required statutory permissions. The third was the builder’s failure to complete the construction within the promised timeline, leaving the buyer uncertain about when the project would actually be completed.The builder also failed to comply with the procedure prescribed under law for responding to the claims made against it. This failure to respond ultimately resulted in the proceedings being decided ex-parte.Putrevu says: “For a homebuyer in today’s day and age, it is very essential to have clear paper work and most importantly ensuring that the developers oblige by the statutory obligations. All home buyers should be vigilant and thorough with these aspects before purchasing an asset.”The Telangana RERA authority noted that the builder had already collected Rs 79 lakh, but had not placed any material on record showing the current status of construction of the villa. The builder did not submit a reply, progress report or any other documentary evidence before the TGRERA authority to establish that construction was in progress or that the villa was nearing completion.The authority therefore drew an adverse inference from the builder’s failure to respond and the absence of evidence regarding the construction. On that basis, it proceeded on the premise that the builder had not completed the construction in accordance with the agreement.The agreement of sale signed by the woman, however, did not specify any date for possession. The Telangana RERA authority observed that this could not mean that the woman would have to wait indefinitely for completion of the project or for the builder to provide a definite possession date. This was particularly relevant because the builder had not produced any material showing how far construction had progressed.The Telangana RERA further held that the builder could not retain around Rs 79 lakh paid by the woman without demonstrating corresponding progress in construction. It consequently directed the builder to refund Rs 79 lakh to her, along with interest at 10.7% per annum. The rate comprised 8.7% SBI MCLR plus 2%.The interest was to be calculated from February 5, 2024, the date of the Agreement of Sale, until the date on which the refund was actually made.Based on ET’s calculation, assuming that the builder paid the refund and interest on August 20, 2026, the interest period would be around 2.54 years, or 927 days. On the Rs 79 lakh paid by Mrs Kumari, an annual interest rate of 10.7% would result in interest of approximately Rs 21.47 lakh.The Telangana RERA authority also found that the builder had marketed and sold plots and villas as part of an unregistered project, in violation of Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. For the violation of Section 3 relating to non-registration of the project, the builder was directed to pay a penalty of Rs 1.03 crore.The authority noted that the sale agreement executed with the woman stated that the builder owned a large parcel of agricultural land and had obtained permission from HMDA to convert it into residential villas for sale.Despite this, there was no reference in the agreement of sale to the project having been registered under RERA.Telangana RERA says: “This establishes that the said Agreement of Sale was executed, and consideration collected thereunder, prior to obtaining registration of the project under the provisions of the Act.”