Builder promised 5069 sq ft villa, delivered smaller one; Telangana RERA offers relief to homebuyer

A Telangana homebuyer who was promised a 5,069 sq ft villa ended up receiving a smaller property from the builder, leading to a dispute between the two parties. The buyer approached the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), alleging that the builder had failed to deliver the villa as advertised.

The case was filed by P. Krishna Reddy, a resident of Old Bowenpally in Hyderabad, Telangana. He alleged that the builder, based in Hyderabad’s Chikalguda area, was involved in malpractice.

What was the assessee’s grievance?

According to the case document, Reddy came across advertisements for an upcoming gated villa project by the said builder on Facebook, Google and physical banners around Bowenpally and Kompally.

This project named as “Bentley Woods” includes 44 villas and is located at Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri District.

The complainant said that he paid a token advance of 20 lakh to the builder on October 12, 2024. The payment for the 3.6 crore worth villa was done partly in cash and the remaining amount was transferred through NEFT.

Also Read | Ananda Crown Gets RERA Nod: Mohali’s Tallest Free-Standing Towers Rise in Sector

The homebuyer was initially told that the villa would have the 5,069 sq ft area mentioned in the brochure. However, at the agreement stage, only 3,900 sq ft was shown as the villa’s actual area, while the remaining 1,169.76 sq ft was classified as “open space” for the entire project.

Reddy said that this open-space charge was never disclosed earlier and was not mentioned in the previous documents. Because of this nearly 30% open space addition, the homebuyer said he was effectively overcharged by 90 lakh, which he termed as unethical and unlawful.

The complainant also alleged that the sale agreement drafted by the builder contains “unfair and one-sided” terms, declaring the token amount as non-refundable, without providing any proper cancellation policy or refund mechanism. He claimed that after realising the misrepresentation, he attempted to cancel the booking, but the builder refused it and coerced him into proceeding with the purchase under the threat of forfeiture of the entire advance amount.

Builder denies allegations

The builder rejected Reddy’s allegations and stated that the villa sale was not based on a per square foot valuation or linked to precise area measurements. The party’s legal representative also asserted that any mention of area in the sale agreement was only indicative and approximate.

In simple words, the builder continued to maintain that the property brochure was only meant for reference to building plans and municipal requirements, and not as a basis for pricing or claims. The builder also claimed that the complainant paid only 5 lakh as token amount.

Also Read | Builder delaying flat possession? Here’s what homebuyers can do

Additionally, the villa developer claimed that Reddy was fully aware of the villa’s dimensions, structure, and features from the outset and had agreed to the total price with full knowledge and satisfaction. The homebuyer reportedly did not raise any objection during the negotiation or execution phase.

Homebuyer approaches RERA; wins the case

After learning these details, Reddy became concerned about the legality of the property as it did not have a RERA registration. Worried about his money and future complications, he decided to file a case in RERA against the builder.

On August 24, 2026, he won the case in Telangana RERA. The builder was directed to refund the entire token advance amount of 20 lakh to Reddy within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.

The government body also imposed a penalty of 98.03 lakh on the builder, which also has to be paid within 30 days from the date of the judgement.

In addition to Reddy’s case in the Telangana RERA tribunal, the original landowner of the Bentley Woods project, Chittaboina Raj Kumar, also lodged an FIR against the builder for cheating and criminal breach of trust.

In the final judgement, the Telangana RERA observed the builder’s advertising practice as a serious misrepresentation of a key feature of the property, as buyers paid money thinking they will get a bigger villa, only to get a smaller one.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *