Homeowner wins against builder over roof leakage: Telangana RERA cites 5- year liability rule

Imagine buying a new apartment from a reputed builder and then finding the roof of the said apartment leaking water during the monsoons and worst all of this happened just ten months after performing a housewarming ceremony. This is the experience of Mr Akash from Mubarak Nagar, Nizamabad, Telangana when his newly purchased apartment’s roof started leaking in July 2024.

The house warming ceremony took place on August 26, 2023, but the painting in the apartment was still not finished. The builder’s supervisor, Shiva, told Akash (homeowner) that the remaining painting would only be done after they obtained a "No Due" certificate.

Trusting Shiva, Akash went ahead with the housewarming ceremony and paid the outstanding amount of Rs 22.07 lakh on September 6 and 7 of 2023. On August 13, 2024, the builder gave possession of the apartment to Akash by making him sign a document, but he didn’t receive an official possession letter.


The builder pointed out that according to point number 22 of the sale deed, it was clearly mentioned that the apartment needed certain finishes and civil works, like plastering, flooring, joinery, and colour rendering, and it was agreed that Akash would cover these costs.

The builder also said that the apartment was sold to Akash as a semi-finished unit and that he was fully aware of this when he took possession.

Akash argued that the builder did not give the whole picture, as the transaction was divided into two parts: sale agreement for the apartment and a separate work contract for the same apartment.

The sale deed specified the delivery of a vacant apartment and physical possession. Meanwhile, the Work Contract mentioned that the builder was responsible for completing the remaining work within a month. These works included plastering, flooring, POP work, sanitary fixtures, windows, doors, and painting.

Akash did not deny the fact that the sale deed mentioned a semi-finished apartment but he said that this does not mean that the builder will give him an apartment lacking basic construction work, including cleaning.

Moreover, when Akash complained to the builder about the leaking roof, the builder acknowledged it and assured that civil works and waterproof coating would be completed within a month, but it remained incomplete even after 6 months.

So, Akash decided to take legal action since his newly purchased apartment had turned into a horror story with leaking roof, half finished paint job, broken walls, cracks, etc. Moreover, the recent heavy rainfall in Nizamabad, had made the leakage worse and caused significant damage including the collapse of the POP ceiling. Akash wanted a comprehensive and permanent solution.

Akash counted a total of 14 cracks and one of these cracks had been repaired three to four times but still wasn’t fixed. The builder brushed off Akash’s claims and said that there were no multiple cracks in the apartment and that there weren’t any significant structural issues.

On August 24, 2026 Akash won the case in Telangana RERA, but only on the issue of water leakage from the roof. The other objections could not be proved in the RERA tribunal. Keep reading to find out how Akash won the case.

One big mistake which could have derailed the entire case, was Akash didn’t list the builder as a separate party. Instead, he included Mr Pranay Attal, Mr Atish Attal, and Mr Gangone Snehith, who were partners of the builder.

However, the Telangana RERA allowed this error as a bona fide mistake and said that the above persons are deemed to represent the builder, and any directions or liabilities arising from their judgement will be deemed as binding upon the builder and its partners.

Also read: Ground-floor flat owner wins water leakage case as Maharashtra court orders the first-floor owner to let repairmen work in his flat and share the cost this way

How did the homeowner win the water leakeage issue?

Aradhana Bhansali, Senior Partner, Rajani Associates, says that under Section 14(3) of the RERA Act, 2016 homebuyers get a statutory safeguard after they take possession of their respective flats from the builder for any structural defects, workmanship defects, quality issue, service-related defect or other obligations if they bring these issues to the builder's notice within 5 years from the date of possession.

Bhansali says: "Once such a defect is reported by the homebuyer in writing, the builder is required to rectify it within 30 days without any additional cost to the homebuyer. If the builder fails to do so, the homebuyer becomes entitled to seek compensation under RERA law."

Ravi Charan Pentapati, Partner at Dentons Link Legal, said to ET Wealth Online that in Akash's (homeowner) case the Telangana RERA authority also followed the said defect liability provision (Section 14(3) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016) and ordered the builder to fix the terrace water leakeage issue within 60 days.

Also read: Faulty terrace repairs flooded two flats; Maharashtra court awards senior citizen Rs 3.96 lakh compensation

However, for the compensation for possession delay aspect, Pentapati says that Telangana RERA authority asked the homebuyer to take the issue with the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71, by filing Form 'N' under Rule 34 of the Telangana RERA Rules, 2017.

Pentapati says that this distinction between the RERA authority's power is critical: rectification of a defect is an equitable, in-rem direction within the RERA Authority's power, whereas monetary compensation requires a separate adjudicatory mechanism.

Pentapati says: "Thus, Mr. Akash (homeowner) won on the water leakage issue because it was the only claim that combined a clear statutory right (Section 14(3)), an observable and continuing defect, and a relief (rectification) within the Telangana RERA Authority's power to grant. Every other claim failed because of a missing element: jurisdiction, evidence, party configuration, or statutory anchor."

Also read: Builder must fix recurring water leakage permanently, but homeowner can't dictate which contractor or brand to use: Karnataka RERA gives relief to Bengaluru top-floor flat owner

What is the difference between a "structural defect" and a "workmanship defect" under Section 14(3) of RERA Act?

Adnan Siddiqui, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva, said to ET Wealth Online: says that the RERA Act does not define either term, which has left room for interpretation through tribunal and court decisions like this one. A structural defect goes to the integrity of the building itself, foundations, load-bearing columns, beams, slabs. These are failures that affect whether the building is safe to occupy.

According to Siddiqui, a workmanship defect is broader and, frankly, more commonly litigated. It covers how the construction was actually carried out whether materials were applied correctly, whether specifications were followed, whether the finished work performs as intended.

Siddiqui says: "Poor waterproofing, defective tiling, inadequate grouting, faulty plumbing, none of these compromise the building's structure, but all of them reflect a failure in execution that RERA holds developers accountable for."

Telangana RERA discussion

Akash could not prove the incomplete work and OC was granted

The Telangana RERA observed that Akash filed a complaint against the builder for incomplete work but has not furnished any technical reports, photographs, certifications, or other material substantiating the alleged deficiencies or incomplete works.

Additionally, the record indicated that the builder has already obtained the Occupancy Certificate for the project, which Telangana RERA said that prima facie signifies that essential services required for occupation have been completed.

Akash also did not make the homeowners’ association a party to the proceedings.

Also read: Bought a new apartment but facing structural, workmanship, or quality issues? Builders must repair it within 30 days if... Know your rights under RERA

Builder has to fix the water leakage issue within 60 days

The Telangana RERA authority said that the water leakage from terrace issue falls within the scope of the Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The Section 14 (3) mandates a builder to rectify any structural or workmanship-related defects that come to light within the defect liability period i.e., five years from the date of handing over possession to the homeowner (in this case Akash).

Also read: Builder fined Rs 1.03 crore by Telangana RERA for unregistered, unfinished villas; homebuyer gets Rs 79 lakh refund + Rs 21.7 lakh interest

The Telangana RERA authority observed that though the builder dismissed the water leakage issue as minor, in the interest of ensuring construction quality and compliance with statutory obligations, the TSRERA authority said they directed the builder to conduct a thorough inspection of the terrace area and carry out any necessary rectification, if required, within 60 days from the date of this Order.

The Telangana RERA authority asked Akash to co-operate and give full access to the builder to enable them to undertake inspection and remedial works. The Telangana RERA authority said that if the builder failed to comply with this order then a separate penalty would be imposed on them.