In a significant ruling, the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) recently held that water leakage from a terrace into the floor below is a clear indication of poor terrace flooring and inadequate waterproofing by the builder who is based out of Kondapur.
On this ground, the TGRERA authority ordered the builder to ensure that the building's envelope is fully watertight by relaying the flooring and carrying out comprehensive waterproof work to permanently address the water seepage issue. The homebuyer had reported the problem barely three months after taking possession of the property.
The Telangana RERA also cited Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which imposes a mandatory five-year defect liability period from the date of handing over possession, specifically for structural defects or any other defect in workmanship.
This judgement came in a case filed by Mr Pasumarti from Bachupally, a rapidly developing residential suburb in north-west Hyderabad, regarding water-seepage issues in his newly purchased flat from a reputed Hyderabad builder.
As per the submission, Mr Pasumarti purchased the flat in Bachupally on November 14, 2022, for Rs 48.64 lakh. The flat measures 1,555 sq. ft, and is registered with RERA (Registration No. P02200002830). Even after receiving the full agreed-upon sale consideration of Rs 48.64 lakh from Pasumarti, the builder, however, failed to execute a sale deed; only a sale agreement was signed.
When Pasumarti sent a legal notice to the builder regarding the absence of a sale deed, the builder responded by saying that they are in the process of transitioning to an LLP structure, and their designated partner has exited the company, which may result in some delays. On August 31, 2024, the builder finally executed the sale deed.
As per Pasumarti's contentions, he noticed severe structural and construction-related defects within weeks of taking possession of the flat. Among major issues was water leakage from the ceiling of his bathrooms situated directly below Flat No. 401. He also alleged significant water seepage from the terrace into the children's bedroom and guest bedroom, resulting in rust on the window grills and persistent dampness.
So, Pasumarti complained to the builder about this through both WhatsApp and email. However, the builder did not provide him with a permanent resolution regarding the issue. Consequently, he hired private technicians for temporary repairs, which ultimately proved to be ineffective.
Pasumarti refused to pay the maintenance charges, citing this gross negligence. He also alleged that the society was formed under the influence of the builder in a manner that disregarded his legitimate concerns.
Pasumarti also said that by the time the sale deed was signed, the structural defects worsened, leading to significant wall cracks in all three bathrooms and health issues for the occupants due to the moisture-laden environment.
To support his allegations, Pasumarti hired a private company to conduct inspection and thermal scanning of the property. The agency's report confirmed deep-seated seepage and plumbing defects and recommended professional-grade waterproofing and relaying of the terrace flooring to prevent further structural deterioration.
Accordingly, Pasumarti filed a complaint with Telangana RERA for directions, asking the builder to make the necessary repairs. He sought permanent rectification of the aforesaid defects instead of temporary repair work.
The builder countered Pasumarti's contentions by saying that the alleged cracks in the flat are only hairline cracks arising due to normal settlement and usage of the building and do not constitute structural damage. Nevertheless, the builder told Telangana RERA that he is willing to undertake external crack-filling works wherever seepage is observed.
Regarding the complaint about epoxy grouting in the bathrooms, the builder said that proper grouting work was done during construction and that any subsequent deterioration is due to normal wear and tear from usage; therefore, he is not liable for this, claimed the builder.
After hearing their arguments and contentions, Telangana RERA on May 5, 2026, passed its order partly in the homeowner's favour.
Why did the homebuyer win this case?
Aradhana Bhansali, Senior Partner, Rajani Associates said to ET Wealth Online : In the recent case of SVS Square Spaces LLP v. Vijay Kumar Pasumarti, the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA Authority), the complaint against the promoter/builder (M/s SVS Square Spaces LLP) was on workmanship issues in the residential project with a direction against the promoter to rectify structural defects and workmanship issues, specifically regarding water seepage and leakages, in the project.
Despite several complaints to the promoter to rectify the structural defects which went unheeded leading to significant wall cracks bathrooms and health issues for the occupants due to the moisture-laden environment and therefore the complaint was made.
The TGRERA Authority observed that water leakages stemming from the terrace into the below floor constitute a clear instance of defective workmanship of the terrace flooring and an inadequate waterproofing course. The bounden duty of the builder to ensure that the building's envelope remains watertight was breached.
Therefore, the builder was liable to change the flooring and provide comprehensive waterproof treatment to resolve the water seepage in accordance with Section 14 (3) of RERA.
Further as regards, internal seepage issues in the toilet, the TGRREA Authority noted as the flat has been handed over and is currently in the active possession and occupation of the allottee therefore minor seepage issues or leaks within individual toilets post-occupation generally fall under the ambit of routine maintenance.
Bhansali says: "Therefore, the responsibility for internal repairs, such as epoxy treatment for tiles or grout filling within the unit's toilets, lies with the homebuyer. The Authority made it clear that there is a distinction between defects caused by faulty construction or poor workmanship by the builder and problems that arise due to the normal wear and tear of a flat after it has been handed over to the buyer."
According to Bhansali, TGRERA authority held that while the builder remains responsible for defects resulting from defective design, construction or workmanship, issues arising from regular use and routine maintenance after possession are generally the responsibility of the allottee.
Telangana RERA's order and discussion
A summary of the order is here:
RERA law imposes a five-year defect liability period on the builder
Telangana RERA said that under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a builder must follow Section 14 (3) which imposes a mandatory five-year defect liability period from the date of handing over possession, specifically for structural defects or any other defect in workmanship.
The authority observed that the provisions of the RERA law, when read together, clearly say that the completion of a project is not limited to the mere execution of a sale deed or handing over of possession; it also includes the delivery of a project that is structurally sound, safe, and free from any workmanship defects.
In light of the above legal background, Telangana RERA said that the homebuyer has successfully brought forward to their notice that the builder's workmanship is defective as evidenced by the terrace flooring and the inadequate waterproofing course, which has resulted in persistent water leakages into the floor below.
Thus, Telangana RERA said that under Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the defect liability period begins from the date of handing over possession. In the present case, the builder had got the occupation certificate on January 21, 2023, and the sale agreement was signed on November 14, 2022, and the sale deed on August 31, 2024.
Telangana RERA holds builder liable for bad terrace flooring and an inadequate waterproofing course
Telangana RERA said that they found that the water leakages from the terrace into the floor Telangana RERA constitute a clear instance of defective workmanship of the terrace flooring and an inadequate waterproofing course.
Telangana RERA said: "It is the bounden duty of the developer to ensure that the building's envelope remains watertight. Therefore, the Respondent (builder) is liable to relay the flooring and provide comprehensive waterproof treatment to resolve the water seepage."
General routine maintenance is not builder's liability
Telangana RERA said that since the flat is now in active possession of the homeowner, minor seepage issues or leaks within individual toilets post-occupation generally fall under the ambit of routine maintenance.
Consequently, the authority said that the responsibility for internal repairs, such as epoxy treatment for tiles or grout filling within the unit's toilets, lies with the homeowner.
Order:
Telangana RERA passed the following directions:
a. The Respondent (builder) is hereby directed to attend to the water leakages and seepage issues manifesting from the terrace area into the unit below. This shall include relaying the terrace flooring and executing a comprehensive waterproof treatment in accordance with standard engineering practices to ensure a permanent resolution.
b. Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the Respondent shall, within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of this Order:
i) Complete all necessary waterproofing works on the terrace as mentioned in direction (a) above;
ii) Ensure that the said waterproofing treatment is certified by a qualified waterproofing consultant for a minimum period of 5 (five) years, and a copy of such certification shall be provided to the Complainant.
