For a homebuyer waiting months or sometimes years beyond the promised possession date, the most frustrating question is often not whether the developer has delayed the project. It is what remedy will actually get the buyer something meaningful.
Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), a delayed Hyderabad project can give an allottee several possible remedies. These include interest for the period of delay, refund with interest where the buyer chooses to exit, directions to hand over possession, and compensation in appropriate cases.
But these remedies are not interchangeable. The right claim depends on whether the buyer wants the flat or wants out, what the agreement says, whether possession has actually been offered, and what can be established from the project’s records.
For Telangana projects, complaints are presently dealt with by the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG-RERA) under the central RERA framework and the Telangana RERA Rules, 2017. TG-RERA continues to provide online complaint filing and, as of February 2026, lists separate forms for complaints before the Authority and the Adjudicating Officer.
The First Question: Do You Want the Flat or Your Money Back?
Section 18 of RERA creates two substantially different remedies.
Where the promoter fails to complete the project or is unable to give possession in accordance with the agreement for sale, an allottee who withdraws from the project is entitled to return of the amount received by the promoter, along with interest and compensation as provided under the Act.
If the allottee does not withdraw, the promoter must pay interest for every month of delay until possession is handed over. That distinction is crucial.
A buyer who wants to retain the apartment should generally frame the claim around delayed-possession interest and delivery of possession. A buyer who no longer wants the property may instead seek refund with interest.
The Supreme Court has recognised this distinction. In M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 10 SCC 1, the Court explained the separate consequences contemplated by Section 18 for an allottee who withdraws and one who continues with the project.
What Interest Can a Hyderabad Buyer Claim?
Telangana has prescribed a specific interest rate under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
The rule provides for the highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) of the State Bank of India plus 2% as the rate payable by the promoter to the allottee, and vice versa.
The actual rate applicable to a particular claim therefore depends on the prescribed benchmark applicable at the relevant time. Recent TG-RERA orders demonstrate that the Authority has applied rates such as 10.70%, 10.75%, 10.85% and 11%, depending on the prevailing SBI MCLR used in the particular order.
This is preferable to simply inserting an arbitrary percentage into a complaint.
More importantly, TG-RERA orders show that the interest calculation can continue until actual lawful possession, where the allottee chooses to remain in the project. In a recent order, the Authority directed payment of interest on amounts actually paid by the complainants from the day following the agreed possession date until actual handing over of lawful possession.
Can the Buyer Demand Refund Instead?
Yes, where the statutory conditions under Section 18 are satisfied.
The buyer does not necessarily have to remain indefinitely tied to a project simply because the promoter eventually promises completion.
In Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni, (2020) 10 SCC 783, the Supreme Court dealt with the rights of allottees under RERA and confirmed the significance of Section 18 where possession is not delivered in accordance with the agreement.
TG-RERA orders likewise demonstrate that refund claims can result in directions for repayment of the amounts paid along with statutory interest. In recent cases, the Authority has ordered refunds calculated from the respective dates of payment until actual refund.
The practical issue is therefore not simply whether a refund is legally possible. It is whether refund is commercially the better remedy.
If property prices have risen significantly since booking, a buyer may prefer to retain the allotment and claim delayed-possession interest. If the project has become commercially or practically unacceptable, continuing to wait may make little sense.
What If the Developer Says the Project Was Extended?
This is one of the most common disputes in delayed-possession complaints.
A developer may point to an extension of the project’s RERA registration, revised completion dates, force majeure events or other administrative extensions. That does not necessarily rewrite the allottee’s contractual possession date.
Recent TG-RERA decisions have specifically considered this issue. In one 2025 order, the Authority held that an extension of project registration did not dilute the contractual rights of the complainants and treated the possession date stipulated in the Agreement for Sale as controlling.
The precise effect of an extension will, however, depend on the facts, the original agreement, the basis on which the extension was granted and any applicable regulatory orders.
A buyer should therefore obtain the project’s complete TG-RERA registration history rather than relying solely on the developer’s explanation.
What About Force Majeure and COVID-19?
Force majeure is not a universal answer to every delay.
Whether a particular event legally excuses delay depends on the contract, the statutory framework and the factual connection between the event and the delay.
TG-RERA has recently scrutinised such arguments closely. In a 2025 order, the Authority rejected a COVID-related force majeure defence where the agreement had been executed after the pandemic had subsided and the promoter was therefore aware of the prevailing circumstances.
This illustrates an important point: the mere invocation of “force majeure” does not automatically wipe out a promoter’s delay liability.
The promoter should be able to demonstrate why the particular event prevented performance and for what period.
When Should a Buyer Ask for Compensation?
Interest and compensation should not be treated as identical remedies.
The RERA framework distinguishes between refund, interest and compensation, and the Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters recognised that the statutory scheme assigns different adjudicatory functions to the Authority and the Adjudicating Officer.
In practice, TG-RERA orders have directed buyers seeking compensation to pursue the appropriate remedy before the Adjudicating Officer through Form N, while the Authority itself addresses issues such as delayed possession and statutory interest.
That makes the framing of the complaint important. A buyer should identify precisely whether the claim concerns possession, refund, interest, compensation, or a combination of legally available reliefs.
What Actually Makes a Strong TG-RERA Complaint?
The strongest complaint is usually documentary rather than rhetorical.
A buyer should preserve the Agreement for Sale, allotment letter, payment receipts, demand letters, bank statements, possession commitments, correspondence with the promoter, construction updates and any promised revised dates.
The project’s TG-RERA registration details should also be checked against the agreement. The Authority itself allows aggrieved persons to file complaints for violations of RERA and the applicable Rules, and its online complaint process requires project and complainant details together with supporting documents.
Most importantly, the complaint should identify the contractual possession date and explain exactly how the delay is calculated.
A vague statement that “the project is delayed” is considerably weaker than a documented timeline showing the agreed date, payments made, extensions claimed and present status of construction.
Enforcement Matters as Much as Winning
Obtaining an order is not necessarily the end of the process.
Section 40 of RERA deals with recovery of interest, penalty or compensation and enforcement of orders. The Act also provides an appellate mechanism, with appeals to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal generally required within 60 days, subject to the statutory framework for condonation.
A buyer should therefore consider enforceability and the promoter’s financial position while deciding whether to pursue possession or refund.
So, Which Remedy Actually Works?
For a Hyderabad homebuyer facing delayed possession, there is no single remedy that works in every project.
If the buyer still wants the apartment, a claim for possession together with statutory interest for the period of delay may be the most practical route.
If confidence in the project has collapsed, seeking refund with interest may make greater commercial sense.
If there are additional losses or compensation claims, the appropriate forum and procedural route must be considered separately.
The most important step is to avoid filing a generic “delay complaint.” The buyer’s objective should determine the relief sought, and the Agreement for Sale, TG-RERA records and payment history should support the entire claim.
For delayed Hyderabad projects, RERA can provide meaningful relief but the outcome often turns less on the fact that construction is late and more on what the buyer asks for, when the contractual obligation became due, and how convincingly the delay and entitlement are documented.