BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 13th day of MARCH, 2025.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
C.C.P.No.42/2024/TG RERA
Between:
Sri Rukmannagari Sunil Reddy, 3-4-759/B, 2nd Floor,
Rukkus Residency, Opp: HP Petrol Pump, Barkatpura,
Hyderabad – 500 027.
…Complainant.
And
Jubilee Hills Landmark Projects Pvt.Ltd., Regd.Office:
Sy.No.16/3, Ward No.9, Road No.1, Jubilee Hills Check
Post, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500 033.
…Respondent.
This complaint came up before me on this day for enquiry and hearing
in the presence of Counsel for the respondent, the complainant did not
appear, but the Counsel for respondent submitted a memo signed by
complainant in original withdrawing the case, after perusing the memo and
having stood over for consideration, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as “the
Act”) read with Rule 35 of the Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules”) to grant
compensation.
Page 1 of 4
2(a). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the respondent is the
Promoter of the Project known as ‘Mantri-A Residential Project’ and the
complainant is one of the allottees of the apartment. The respondent had
acquired the property admeasuring 28,303 Sq.yards of land in T.S.No.16/3
(Old Sy.No.120/Part, 403/Part) Block-II, Ward No.9, near Jubilee Hills
Check Post situated at Shaikpet village and Mandal, Hyderabad. Thereafter,
the respondent entered into a Joint Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney dt.24.08.2011 in respect of the said property with Mantri
Mansion Private Limited (MMPL) vide document No.1327/2011. The said
Mantri Mansion Private Limited has been amalgamated into Mantri
Developers Pvt.Ltd., (MDPL) vide an order dt.31.05.2018 passed by the
National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in Company Petition CP
(CAA) No.46/BB/2017. The said Project was being constructed over the
said land after obtaining permissions from GHMC for construction of super-
premium luxury residential units/Apartments in multi-storied apartment
buildings on the Project ‘Mantri-A Residential Project’. The initial allotment
was done for Unit H-401 in November, 2018 and the same was subsequently
shifted to D-901 in January, 2022. The complainant made total payment of
Rs.3,27,72,075/- (Rupees Three Crore, Twenty Seven Lakhs, Seventy Two
Thousand and Seventy Five only) as indicated in Schedule A1 of Registered
Agreement of Sale bearing Doc.No.5870/2022, dt.13.09.2022. Later on, the
respondent failed to deliver possession of the Flat by the agreed date of
30.09.2023, despite collecting 72% of the sale consideration from the
complainant. The respondent has also failed to complete the Project within
the proposed completion date. As on date, the respondent has managed to
Page 2 of 4
complete only 30% of the over Project, stalling further progress due to lack
of funds.
2(b). It is also averred in the complaint that the complainant and other
allottees came to know that the Mantri group companies have an
outstanding debts and liabilities of more than 3000 Crores of rupees
towards financial creditors, lenders, home buyers and other creditors. Even
in the present project, the Promoter-respondent-developer have defaulted on
the loans availed from the Banks and the present assets have been declared
as non-performing asset (NPA). In the given financial inability of the
respondent in conjunction with country-wide recovery proceedings initiated
against the respondent and Mantri group companies, it is unlikely that the
respondent will be able to complete the Project. Therefore, the complainant
filed present complaint seeking compensation of Rs.35,70,787/- (Rupees
Thirty Five Lakhs, Seventy Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty Seven
only) towards delay in delivering possession of Flat; and monthly interest as
per prevailing highest SBI MCLR plus 2% payable every month from 1st
October, 2023 till handing over possession of completed unit; and also to
award costs of the complaint.
3. On registration of the complaint, notices were issued to both the
parties. Upon receipt of notice, respondent made appearance through
Ms.Shireen Sethna Baria, Advocate, who filed Vakalat on behalf of
respondent and the matter was posted for filing counter. When the matter
was coming up for counter, Counsel for respondent submitted that the
complainant has handed over the original signed memo in their office
Page 3 of 4
withdrawing case and handed over the same to the Counsel to file before
this Tribunal. Counsel filed original memo.
A perusal of signature of complainant on memo and complaint goes to
show that the signatures tally on a comparison. In view of this and said
submission of the Counsel, memo is taken on record. It is stated in memo
by the complainant inter alia that he has transferred the allotment of
Apartment in question to a party and, therefore, he has no subsisting
interest in the Apartment and seeks to withdraw main complaint. As such,
the memo has to be allowed.
4. In the facts and circumstances mentioned in the memo filed by the
complainant, the said memo is allowed and the complaint is disposed off
accordingly as “withdrawn”.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court
on this, the 13th day of MARCH, 2025.
Sd/-
ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
Sd/-
ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
Cc.
Page 4 of 4
