TG-RERA Aditya Capitol Heights Pre-EMI Reimbursement Order Hafeezpet Hyderabad 2026

TG-RERA on May 12, 2026 directed Aditya Construction Company to reimburse Pre-EMI amounts paid by homebuyers in the delayed Aditya Capitol Heights project at Hafeezpet, Serilingampally. The order cites the Supreme Court precedent in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs Anil Patni for the principle that RERA and Consumer Protection Act remedies run concurrently and treats a cancellation letter issued by the builder during pending proceedings as arbitrary and void ab initio. For Hyderabad buyers in Hafeezpet and across the wider Serilingampally mandal who entered Pre-EMI subvention schemes between 2017 and 2020, the order provides the clearest buyer side authority yet on builder accountability when construction stalls.

What is a Pre-EMI subvention scheme?

A Pre-EMI subvention scheme is a builder-bank arrangement where the buyer takes a home loan at booking and the builder agrees to bear the Pre-EMI interest component on the loan until possession is handed over. The buyer signs the loan documents and the loan disburses to the builder against construction milestones, but the monthly interest is paid by the builder to the bank during the construction period. The scheme is attractive to buyers because it eliminates the dual burden of rent plus EMI during construction. The scheme creates risk for buyers when the builder runs out of cash or chooses to stop paying the subvention before possession is delivered.

What did the buyers in Aditya Capitol Heights face?

The complainants in the Aditya Capitol Heights Hafeezpet matter, Anuradha Konapala and Santha Rao Jinaga, booked a 1,610 sqft flat on the ninth floor of A-Block in 2017 under the Pre-EMI scheme. The agreed sale consideration was Rs 76.03 lakh. The buyers paid approximately Rs 59.40 lakh, or roughly 78 percent of the total, between 2017 and 2022. The builder discontinued the Pre-EMI payments to the bank in February 2018 despite having received substantial advance against construction progress. The Hafeezpet project remained incomplete for several years. On July 18, 2025, while the K-RERA matter was pending, the builder issued a cancellation letter purporting to terminate the allotment.

What did TG-RERA actually order?

TG-RERA ordered Aditya Construction to reimburse Pre-EMI amounts actually paid by the complainants up to August 26, 2022 within 40 days. The Authority also directed that all delay charges and penal interest levied on the complainants before August 26, 2022 should be withdrawn. The cancellation letter dated July 18, 2025 was set aside as arbitrary, illegal, void ab initio, and of no legal effect. The builder was directed to disclose the carpet area of the flat as defined under the RERA Act and to provide details of the current undivided share of land. The Authority also instructed the builder to complete pending works, obtain the Occupancy Certificate, and register the flat after adjustment of dues.

Why did the Authority rely on Imperia Structures?

The Aditya Construction builder argued that the complaint was not maintainable because the complainants had earlier approached the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the same dispute. TG-RERA rejected the argument by citing the Supreme Court ruling in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs Anil Patni and Another, which held that remedies under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 can run concurrently. Buyers can pursue parallel proceedings or elect between them at any stage. The Imperia precedent has become the cornerstone of buyer remedy strategy after stalled construction, and the Aditya Hafeezpet order is one of the cleanest applications of the precedent to a Pre-EMI fact pattern.

What does the cancellation-during-proceedings finding mean for buyers?

The Aditya order's finding that the July 18, 2025 cancellation letter was arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio is highly significant for buyers in stalled projects. The finding establishes that a builder cannot use the threat or fact of cancellation as a negotiating lever during pending RERA proceedings. Buyers who receive cancellation letters during ongoing proceedings should not panic; the Aditya reasoning protects them. The buyer should immediately file a memorandum before the Authority placing the cancellation letter on record and seeking it to be set aside. The Authority's power to set aside the cancellation flows from the broader regulatory mandate to protect homebuyer interests under Section 34 of the RERA Act.

How does this order affect buyers in other Pre-EMI projects?

The Aditya order applies directly to its complainants but provides persuasive authority for any Hyderabad buyer in a Pre-EMI subvention project where the builder has discontinued Pre-EMI payments before possession. The relevant facts are three. First, did the buyer enter a Pre-EMI scheme where the builder committed to bear interest until possession. Second, did the builder discontinue the payments before possession. Third, was the buyer's payment progress consistent with construction progress. Where these facts are present, the Aditya reasoning supports a TG-RERA complaint seeking Pre-EMI reimbursement, withdrawal of delay charges and penal interest levied during the discontinuation period, and any cancellation letter to be set aside. Our coverage of the RERA Section 18 refund process documents the parallel framework for buyers who instead elect to withdraw and claim refund.

What happens to the buyer's bank loan during all this?

The buyer's home loan obligation to the bank remains intact regardless of the builder's default on the Pre-EMI subvention. When the builder stops paying Pre-EMI to the bank, the bank charges the EMI to the buyer's account or treats the loan as delinquent. The Aditya order does not directly compel the bank to forbear; it compels the builder to reimburse the buyer for what the buyer paid to the bank in lieu of the defaulted subvention. Buyers caught in this position should communicate immediately with the bank to request restructuring or moratorium pending RERA outcome, and should preserve all bank statements showing the dates from which the buyer began paying directly. These statements are critical evidence in the TG-RERA complaint and the eventual reimbursement calculation.

What is the practical TG-RERA complaint workflow for a Pre-EMI dispute?

The practical complaint workflow involves five steps. First, written demand to the builder citing the discontinuation date and quantifying the Pre-EMI amounts paid by the buyer directly to the bank thereafter. Second, formal complaint filed online through the TG-RERA portal under Section 31 of the RERA Act, with all supporting documents including the sale agreement, the Pre-EMI scheme term sheet, bank statements, and demand letters. Third, the complaint fee, which is Rs 1,000 for individual complainants. Fourth, the hearing process, which typically concludes within 60 to 90 days of filing. Fifth, the order, which directs reimbursement and any consequential relief. Buyers in Hafeezpet, Kondapur, Gachibowli, or any West Hyderabad locality who face a similar Pre-EMI default can use this exact workflow. Our coverage of TG-RERA builder penalty orders documents the wider enforcement texture.

How should buyers approach Pre-EMI subvention schemes in 2026 onwards?

Pre-EMI subvention schemes carry structural counterparty risk that the Aditya order makes explicit. Buyers considering such schemes in 2026 should apply three filters before committing. First, builder financial strength. The buyer should review the builder's audited financials, look at the cash position and project pipeline, and verify the builder is not over-leveraged across multiple parallel commitments. Second, the scheme term sheet. The buyer should insist on a written term sheet that specifies the exact duration of the Pre-EMI commitment, the maximum interest rate covered, and the events that would trigger early termination. Generic verbal commitments at the booking stage are insufficient and create documentation gaps that the buyer cannot bridge later. Third, escrow protection. Where possible, the buyer should structure the bank loan disbursement to require Pre-EMI service as a condition before each tranche release. Buyers comparing the Hafeezpet project against verified registered alternatives in West Hyderabad can use established RERA-compliant launches such as Western Marina in Puppalaguda as a documentation and disclosure benchmark.

What is the bottom line for Hyderabad buyers?

The Aditya Capitol Heights Hafeezpet order is the most useful buyer side authority on Pre-EMI subvention disputes in the Hyderabad market in 2026. It establishes that the builder remains liable for Pre-EMI even after construction stalls, that buyers can pursue RERA and Consumer Forum routes concurrently, and that cancellation letters issued during pending proceedings are void. Buyers in any stalled Hyderabad project under a Pre-EMI subvention, whether in Hafeezpet, Kompally, or any other corridor, should review their position carefully, gather the documentary trail, and file a TG-RERA complaint. The order also signals to builders that the cancellation tool cannot be used to clear pending disputes. The buyer side bargaining position has structurally improved. Buyers entering new transactions in 2026 onwards should treat Pre-EMI subvention not as a free benefit but as a financial product with counterparty risk that warrants the same diligence as any other financial product. The Aditya complainants ultimately got the right outcome; the cost of getting there in time, anxiety, and credit profile damage was real and would have been avoided by stronger contractual protections at the booking stage.

By PropNewz Team