Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member) imposed a penalty of Rs. 3.69 Lakhs on Mr. Sikha Balaraju and his two companies for acting as real estate agents without registration, which is a statutory requirement under Section 9 of the RERA Act, 2016.
As per Section 9(1) of the RERA Act, no real estate agent is allowed to facilitate the sale or purchase of any plot, apartment, or building in a registered real estate project unless they have obtained registration from the RERA Authority.
Background Facts
Complainant is the owner and promoter of a RERA registered commercial project named “Poojitha Tech Park”, located in Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. As per Complainant, only two other stakeholders have rights over the project and no one else is authorized to sell or transfer any part of it.
In 2022, Mr. Sikha Balaraju (Respondent No 1) approached the Complainant and claimed that he had several clients interested in purchasing commercial spaces in the project. He expressed a desire to mediate sales. Although both sides discussed the terms, no formal agreement was signed. Later, Mr. Sikha Balaraju introduced some prospective buyers and the Complainant entered into sale agreements with them.
Complainant contended that Mr. Sikha Balaraju through his companies named M/s Infy Projects (Respondents No. 2) and M/s Bell Square Pvt Ltd (Respondents No. 3) falsely claimed themselves as to be the RERA-registered agents of the Complainant. The Complainant stated that it had never authorized them to act on its behalf.
Complainant also contended that the Respondents quoted higher prices to buyers and misused the extra amounts. One buyer even reported that the Respondents falsely claimed to be representatives of the Complainant. When the Complainant tried to contact them, Mr. Sikha Balaraju did not respond.
Later, a buyer who had signed a sale agreement filed a RERA complaint against the Complainant, which the Complainant believes arose due to the Respondents’ fraudulent acts. The Complainant further contended that the Respondents forged signatures and receipts and since they were not registered agents under Section 9, they are liable to be penalised.
Therefore, the Complainant approached the Authority seeking penalty against the Respondents, cancellation of any RERA registration held by them, a ban on their future operations and refund of all misappropriated amounts.
Authority issued notices to all Respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their lawyers. Respondent No. 3 did not appear even after receiving the notice. None of Respondents 1, 2 or 3 filed any reply or made any submissions. Therefore, the Authority proceeded ex-parte.
Observation and Direction by Authority
In order to decide whether the Respondents could be treated as real estate agents under the RERA Act, the Authority referred to Section 2(zm), which defines a real estate agent as anyone who introduces buyers and sellers and earns money for such services. Under the RERA framework, any person or company that falls under this definition shall register under Section 9.
Authority also considered the contents of the complaint, facts from related complaints and the statement of Mrs. K Vijaya Lakshmi (Respondent No. 4) who said that Mr. Sikha Balaraju entered into a transaction with him on behalf of the Complainant.
Based on these materials, the Authority concluded that Mr. Sikha Balaraju acted on behalf of the Complainant, engaged in the transaction and received monetary consideration from Mrs. K Vijaya Lakshmi towards the purchase of the flat. Therefore, Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 fall within the definition of a “real estate agent.”
Authority held them jointly and severally liable for violating Section 9 of the RERA Act and directed them to pay a penalty of Rs.3,69,600.
Additionally, the Authority directed Mr. Sikha Balaraju and his two companies to not act as agents or assist in selling or buying any property in a registered real estate project without registration under Section 9. If they continue to act without registration, strict action will be taken. They may face a daily penalty that can go up to 5% of the project cost under Section 65 of the Act.
Case – M/s Viana Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sri Sikha Balaraju & others
Citation – Complaint No.117 of 2024
