Interest is liable to be charged on an amount which has not been paid after demand.

1. The house in question was allotted to Sri Sardar Singh, the sole respondent in this appeal, in 1977 by the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and a formal agreement in that connection was entered into in 1979, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The price of the house as quoted in the agreement was Rs. 56,526.00 . In paragraph No. 4 of the said agreement, it was mentioned that the price quoted therein is tentative and the same is likely to be increased if the cost of construction, development, etc. goes up. In 1994, a demand notice for Rs. 62,706.00 was issued to the respondent, against which he filed C.W.J.C. No. 2556 of 1974 (R), which was disposed of with a direction to the Board to decide his representation. The Board has rejected the representation by order dated 31.5.1995. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed C.W.J.C. No. 145 of 1996 (R), which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 27.11.1996 insofar as the interest is concerned. Being dissatisfied thereby the Board has filed this appeal.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The learned Counsel for the Board has submitted that although the price of the house allotted to the respondent was Rs. 56,772,25 but in 1980 when the house was delivered to him he was some how asked to deposit Rs. 50,525.00 only as the price of the house, which he deposited in cash and instalments. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 6,246.25 and. therefore, in 1994 he was asked to deposit the said balance sum with interest, which comes to Rs. 62,706.

4. The interest is liable to be charged on an amount which has not been paid after demand. In the instant case, no such demand was raised on the respondent before 1994 Informing him about the balance of the price of the house, i.e. Rs. 6,246.25. In absence of any such demand, the question of charging interest from the respondent does not arise. If the Board has not informed the respondent about the balance amount of Rs. 6,246.25 earlier, the respondent is not responsible for it and he cannot be punished for the negligence on the part of the Board. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was fully justified to struck off the interest from the demand raised by the Board on the respondent. No exception can be taken to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. It is open to the Board to make fresh calculation in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the directions contained therein.