Telangana REAT Holds That Extension of Project Registration Does Not Automatically Extend Contractual Possession Date

 

Telangana REAT Holds That Extension of Project Registration Does Not Automatically Extend Contractual Possession Date

Case: M/s Vasavi Realtors LLP v. Taru Trivedi & Connected Matters
Case Nos.: T.A. Nos. 17 to 47 of 2026
Forum: Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TSREAT)
Decision: 9 September 2026

The appeals arose from 31 complaints filed by homebuyers concerning the promoter's project “Vasavi Lake City-West” at Hafeezpet, Hyderabad. The Telangana RERA had directed the promoter to pay interest for delayed possession and to complete the project and hand over possession.

Background

The homebuyers had entered into agreements of sale with Vasavi Realtors in 2022. Under those agreements, possession was to be delivered by 31 August 2024, with a six-month grace period extending the date to 28 February 2025, subject to the applicable force-majeure provision.

The promoter subsequently obtained an extension of the RERA registration of the project. It contended that this extension should also affect the possession timeline.

The homebuyers, however, approached Telangana RERA after possession was not delivered within the agreed period.

Finding of the Telangana REAT

The Tribunal rejected the contention that an extension of RERA registration automatically extends the contractual possession date.

It held, in substance, that:

Extension of registration of a project does not, by itself, extend the possession date agreed between the promoter and the homebuyer.

The Tribunal treated the Agreement of Sale as a legally enforceable contract and held that the promoter could not unilaterally alter the agreed possession date. A change in that date would require agreement between the parties.

COVID-19 defence

The promoter also sought to rely upon the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification for the delay.

The Tribunal did not accept this contention because the agreements in question were executed after the lockdown periods, and they themselves stipulated specific possession timelines. The promoter therefore could not retrospectively rely upon COVID-19 to avoid its contractual and statutory liability for delay.

Interest for delayed possession

Telangana RERA had directed the promoter to pay interest at 10.70% per annum on the amounts actually paid by the respective homebuyers, calculated from 1 March 2025 until lawful possession was handed over.

The REAT found no illegality or procedural irregularity in these directions and confirmed the orders passed by Telangana RERA.

Important RERA proposition

The judgment is useful for the proposition that:

An extension granted by RERA to the validity/registration period of a real estate project does not automatically modify the possession date contractually agreed between the promoter and the allottee.

Thus, regulatory extension of project registration and contractual extension of possession are distinct matters. Unless the possession date is validly altered with the consent of the parties or otherwise justified under the governing contractual/statutory provisions, the original contractual date continues to be relevant for determining delay under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

Final outcome

The Telangana REAT dismissed all 31 appeals filed by Vasavi Realtors LLP and upheld Telangana RERA's orders directing payment of delay interest and completion/handing over of the project.

Telangana REAT Upholds ₹27.50 Lakh Penalty Against Promoter for Additional Clubhouse Floor and Revised Plan Without Allottees’ Consent

Telangana REAT Upholds ₹27.50 Lakh Penalty Against Promoter for Additional Clubhouse Floor and Revised Plan Without Allottees’ Consent

Case: Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP & Ors. v. Neelima Vanguru
Case No.: T.A. No. 35 of 2024
Forum: Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TSREAT)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 69

The Telangana REAT dismissed the promoter’s appeal and upheld the ₹27.50 lakh penalty imposed by TG RERA in relation to an additional floor constructed in the project’s clubhouse/amenities block. 

Background

The dispute concerned the Trendset Jayabheri Elevate project at Kondapur, Hyderabad. The project is registered with Telangana RERA as P02400000452. 

The allottee, Neelima Vanguru, alleged that the promoter had:

• obtained a revised sanctioned plan without obtaining the requisite consent of the allottees;

• failed to upload/disclose the revised plan to the allottees as required under RERA; and

• constructed an additional floor in the clubhouse/amenities block.

Findings of Telangana REAT

The Tribunal noted that the original building permission showed the amenities block as Ground + 2 floors. Subsequently, another building permit dated 25 May 2023 reflected the amenities block as Ground + 3 upper floors.

The Tribunal found that the promoter had not uploaded the revised sanctioned plan, amounting to a violation of Section 11(3) of the RERA Act, which requires the promoter to make relevant sanctioned plans and revisions available to allottees.

More importantly, the Tribunal held that the promoter had not obtained the consent of two-thirds of the allottees before obtaining the revised sanctioned plan, thereby violating Section 14(2) of RERA. 

Section 14(2) — significance

Section 14(2) restricts a promoter from making alterations or additions in the sanctioned plans and specifications except in accordance with the statutory requirements, including obtaining the consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees for material alterations/additions.

The Tribunal therefore rejected the promoter's contention that the additional clubhouse floor was merely a minor deviation which benefited allottees and did not impose any additional financial burden upon them. 

Section 11(4)(f) and common areas

The Tribunal also relied upon Section 11(4)(f) read with Section 17, observing that the promoter was required to convey the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of allottees.

The clubhouse, including the additional floor, formed part of the common amenities/common areas. Consequently, the promoter could not treat the alteration as inconsequential merely because it did not result in an additional charge to the allottees. 

Final decision

The Telangana REAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ₹27.50 lakh penalty imposed by TG RERA. It found the RERA order to be legally sustainable and based on appreciation of the facts and applicable provisions of RERA.

Key RERA proposition

A promoter cannot avoid the requirement of obtaining the requisite consent under Section 14(2) merely by characterising a deviation in the sanctioned plan as minor or beneficial to the allottees. Failure to disclose the revised sanctioned plan may independently constitute a violation of Section 11(3).

This case is particularly useful when dealing with unauthorised/revised building plans, alterations in common amenities, clubhouse modifications, and the requirement of two-thirds allottees' consent under Section 14(2) of RERA. (Live Law