Telangana REAT Upholds ₹27.5 Lakh Penalty Over Extra Clubhouse Floor, Revised Plan

The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld a ₹27.50 lakh penalty imposed on Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP for constructing an additional floor in the clubhouse without obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the allottees and failing to upload the revised building plan on the RERA website.

A bench comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy, and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar dismissed the appeal filed by the promoter and two landowners. It upheld the Telangana RERA order imposing the penalty under Sections 60 and 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, for contraventions of Sections 11 and 14.

The complaint was filed by a flat purchaser in the Trendset Jayabheri Elevate project.

She alleged that possession of her B-1004 flat was due by June 30, 2022, but the occupancy certificate was issued only on June 6, 2023.

She also alleged that the promoter had obtained a revised plan without the consent required under Section 14 and failed to meet its disclosure obligations under Section 11.

The promoter disputed the complaint's maintainability, citing the complainant's earlier compensation proceedings. It also argued that the additional clubhouse floor was minor and benefited allottees without extra cost. The tribunal rejected the maintainability objection, finding the reliefs were different.

It therefore held that the complaint was maintainable.

The tribunal found that the promoter had originally uploaded a 2017 building permit showing the amenities block as Ground + 2 floors.

The occupancy certificate, however, referred to another permit, obtained on May 25, 2023, showing the amenities block as Ground + 3 upper floors. The promoter had not uploaded the revised plan.

The tribunal held that the failure to upload the revised plan was a “gross violation” of Section 11(3), which requires sanctioned plans and revised permissions to be made available to allottees. It further held that the promoter had not obtained two-thirds consent before obtaining the revised sanctioned plan, violating Section 14(2).

The tribunal also rejected the challenge to the penalty, noting that Section 11(4)(f), read with Section 17, required the promoter to hand over undivided proportionate title in the common areas, including the clubhouse with the additional floor, to the association of allottees. It upheld the ₹27.50 lakh penalty and observed that the RERA order was “legally sound and based on comprehensive appreciation of facts and law."

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.