High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the imp.ugned order dated 04.03.202s passed in T A No 0g/2025 by the Terangana Rear Estate Apperate Tribunar, Hyderabad and ccp No 13t2o24 0n the fire of Adjudicaring officer, TG RERA pending disposal of main Second appeal. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT"IUSTICE RENUKA YARA SECO ND APPEAL RERA No.2 f 2025 o JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Krishna Murthy Devarakonda' learned counsel for the appetlant. None appeared and thele is no representation for the respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 04'03'2025 passed in T A'No'8 of 2025 onthe file of the Telangana Real iistate Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad ('First Appellate Tribunal')' allowing the appeal by modifying the order dated 08 l l 102'1 passed in Complaint No'7 of 2024 by respondent No'4 i'e'' 1'elangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority ('Original Authority') by setting aside the order against respondent No'1 herein and also aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Originat z\uthority in Complaint No'7 of 2024, thepresent second appeal is pref-erred' 3. For the sake of conveniencc' the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the present second appeal'

4. tnitially, respondent No'2 herein lodged complaint No'7 of 2024 beforetheoriginalAuthorityagainsttheappellant'respondentNos'1 cf the Real Estate (Regulation and and 3 herein under Section 3l ./ RY..I S{.RLR.,\ 2 l02i lan-qana Real Development) Act.20 I6 read with Rule 34 (l) of rhe .I.e Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 201 7. Rcspondent No.2 booked a villa vict the housing cooperative society ntodel and rvas allotted villa No.376 in rhe month of May, 2022. Funhcr. the saicl r.illa was registered in l'avour of respondent No.2 in the month of Novcmber, 2'022 ' but the appe,ant herein did not give possession or the said 'ira and respondent No.2 was asked to pay penalty of. Rs.56g5/- fbr maintenance. The said booking was made through the appellant and respondent No. I herein. Ihe appellant herein has taken control ol the old society and continued with the project activities. I:r,en thou-eh, respondent No.2 paid all the amounts possession was not handed over to him, therefore, complaint was lodged. The said corltplaint was disposed of by the Original Authority directing the appeliant. respondent Nos.l and 3 herein to hand over the kevs to respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. t herein preferr-ecl appeal befbre rhe First Appcrate Tribunar in T.A.No.g or2025. frre said lrrsr appeal was disposed of holding that the appellant herein along with respondent No.3 hcrein are responsible for handing over the villas to the ou,,ners and that there is no dispute about the keys oi.the villa being in the custody of the appellant and respondent No.3 herein 2 llY..l sA.RtiRA 2 2025 ln the present second appeal' the appellant pleaded that it is a 5. maintenance society which performs the role of coordinator between respondent Nos.l and 3' It is also pleaded that the keys are in custody of respondent Nos.l and 3 and the appetlant's only concern is to maintain the villas by collecting cefiain maintenance f'ee' Collection of maintenance fees or certain e-mail comtnunications in respect of maintenance dues does not create any role tbr the appellant in handing over the keys of the vitla, which are in the custody of the owner or developer i-e., respondent Nos'l and i herein'

6. Having regard to the appeilant's case' this Courl is of the considered opinion that the appellant herein is a maintenance society' but not housing society' The housing society' rvhich is respondent No' I and the developer, which is respondent No'3 ' have ownership and -I'herefore' they possession of the villas, as per their respective shares' alone would be responsible lbr handing over the keys to the purchaser i.e., respondent No'2 herein, who has booked the vitla and paid the sale consideration. The appellant herein is nothing but an agency which is meant for housekeeping/maintenance' Therefbre' on the basis of stray e-mails, the appeltant cannot be held liable for handing over keys ofthe villa to respondent No.2. It is also case ol the appellant herein that no 3 i{ Y..l s{.Rt.;L\ I l0l5 - evidence was lead on its behalf before the First Appellate Court and rhe Original Authority. Hence, this Court deems it just and necessary to direct the First Appellate r-ribunar to asceftain whose rore it is to hand over the keys 10 respondent No.2 before passing any order against the appellant, who is a maintenance society. In the circuntstances, the matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Authority to give an opportunitv to the appellant to put_forth its case and pass appropriate ordels in accordance with law.

7. With the aboie dircction, the Second Appeal RERA is allowcrl by serting aside thc order daied 04-03.2025 passed in T.A.No.g of 20r_5 and the rnatter is renranded back to the Telangana Real Estate Appeltate I'ribunal, Hyderabad, for fi.esh consideration by giving opponunity to the appellant to read evidence on its beharf. There shaa be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closeci. SD/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 z 3 The Registrar, Telangana Real Estate Appellate Authority, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI KRTSHNA N/URTHY DEVARAKONDA Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies Yk Asr/ncl *-1:-:-:L. r---::--' --- HIGH COURT DATED:0.t/09/2025 ( ,-5 ..:\ {3 i.1i a O t T 2025 B0 l it. JUDGMENT SARERA.No.2 of 2025 ALLOWING THE SECOND APPEAL 5@d'L $=- {\rou: