Telangana RERA Orders Builder to Fix Roof Leakage Under 5-Year Defect Liability Rule

• Telangana RERA directed the builder to inspect and repair the terrace within 60 days.
• The ruling relied on the five-year defect liability protection under Section 14(3) of the RERA Act.
• Other complaints over incomplete work and construction defects were not accepted due to insufficient supporting evidence.

A homebuyer in Nizamabad, Telangana, has received relief from the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (T-RERA) after complaining about persistent water leakage from the terrace of his apartment. The authority directed the builder to inspect the terrace and carry out the necessary remedial work within 60 days. The order was issued on August 24, 2026, nearly three years after the homeowner’s housewarming ceremony.

The case involved Akash, a resident of Mubarak Nagar, Nizamabad, whose apartment reportedly developed roof leakage in July 2024. The dispute became more serious during heavy rainfall, with the homeowner alleging that water seepage had damaged the apartment, including its POP ceiling. The matter is important for homebuyers because Telangana RERA applied the statutory defect-liability provision under Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which protects buyers against certain structural and workmanship defects reported within five years of possession.

According to the proceedings, Akash had his housewarming ceremony on August 26, 2023, although some work inside the apartment was reportedly still incomplete. He subsequently paid outstanding dues amounting to around ₹22.07 lakh in September 2023.

The builder later maintained that the apartment had been sold as a semi-finished unit and referred to the sale deed, which stated that certain finishing and civil works would have to be undertaken by the buyer. Akash, however, argued that the transaction also included a separate work contract under which the builder was responsible for completing several pending works, including plastering, flooring, POP work, sanitary fittings, windows, doors and painting.

The homeowner also claimed that the builder had acknowledged the terrace leakage and promised to complete waterproofing and related civil work within a month. According to his complaint, the problem continued for several months and worsened during heavy rainfall.

Under Section 14(3) of the RERA Act, a promoter can be required to rectify structural defects, workmanship issues and certain other specified defects that are brought to its notice within five years from the date possession is handed over. The statutory provision requires the promoter to address such defects without additional cost to the allottee within the prescribed period.

In this case, Telangana RERA concluded that the terrace water leakage fell within the scope of this protection. The authority therefore directed the builder to conduct a detailed inspection of the terrace and undertake the required remedial measures within 60 days of the order.

The homeowner was also directed to provide the builder with reasonable access to the property so that the inspection and repair work could be carried out. Telangana RERA further indicated that failure to comply with the order could result in separate action or penalties.

While Akash succeeded on the roof-leakage issue, Telangana RERA did not grant relief on all of his other allegations. The homeowner had raised concerns about unfinished work, cracks and other deficiencies in the apartment.

The authority noted that the homeowner had not submitted sufficient technical material to establish these allegations. The proceedings reportedly lacked supporting documents such as technical reports, certifications or other evidence that could conclusively demonstrate the alleged construction deficiencies.

The authority also took note of the fact that an Occupancy Certificate (OC) had been obtained for the project. According to the order, this indicated, on a prima facie basis, that the essential requirements for occupation had been completed.

The case highlights an important distinction under RERA: not every complaint against a builder automatically results in compensation or a repair order. Homebuyers need to establish the defect, report it within the applicable statutory period and maintain adequate documentary evidence.

Legal experts cited in the proceedings also highlighted the distinction between defect rectification and monetary compensation. While the RERA authority can direct a promoter to rectify a qualifying defect, claims seeking compensation may need to be pursued through the appropriate adjudicatory mechanism.

For homebuyers, the practical lesson is to report construction or workmanship defects in writing, retain photographs and videos, obtain technical assessments where appropriate, and preserve correspondence with the builder. These records can become important if the dispute eventually reaches RERA or another legal forum.

The builder is required to inspect the terrace and undertake necessary remedial work within 60 days of the Telangana RERA order. Akash has been asked to cooperate by providing access to the apartment and terrace for the inspection and repair process.

If the builder does not comply with the direction, the authority has indicated that further action, including a separate penalty, may follow. The case therefore reinforces the importance of the five-year defect-liability protection available to homebuyers under RERA, while also showing why strong evidence is essential when making broader construction-defect claims.