Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—The challenge in this appeal is to the order of the learned District Forum, Solan, dated 23.4.96.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be mentioned for determining the point in controversy are that the respondent/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) who is a minor, through his guardian Dr. Mrs. Manju Mittal, applied for category I type of flat in the month of April, 1989 to the appellant/opposite party H.P. Housing Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party). As per terms of the allotment, Annexure R-4, the flat was to be constructed tentatively within a period of two and half years. There is no dispute that initially the complainant paid the amount to the opposite party demanded by them. However, the dispute arose between the parties when the complainant was asked to pay another sum of Rs. 73,500/- to the opposite party within 45 days of the letter, Annexure R-6, so that the possession of the flat could be delivered to him. The amount of Rs. 73,500/- was demanded from the complainant because of the escalated price of the flat. The complainant did not pay the amount and challenged the escalation of the price in this complaint. It appears that vide letter dated 23.3.94, Annexure R-12, the allotment of the flat was cancelled.

3. The opposite party has resisted the complaint on the ground that the allotment of the flat has been cancelled vide letter dated 25.3.94. Annexure R-12, and, therefore, no complaint would lie. Further that the opposite party has every right to enhance the price of the flat. Again, the date of construction of the flat was only tentative and this date could be extended by the appellant.

4. The learned District Forum has Held that the demand for payment of escalated price vide letter dated 31.7.93 is arbitrary and the complainant is entitled to interest @ 16½% per annum on the sum of Rs. 1,75.000/- with effect from 1.4.92 to 31.7.93. The District Forum has further directed not to charge interest on the enhanced amount demanded vide letter dated 31.7.93, Annexure R-6, till actual payment of enhanced price was made by the complainant. It is not disputed that the possession has been delivered to the opposite party in June, 1996 and the actual payment had been made in May, 1996.

5. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the opposite party submits that the opposite party could not have been burdened with interest @ 16½ per annum on the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- with effect from 1.4.92 till 31.7.93 by the District Forum as the date by which the flat as required to be completed as given in letters Annexures R-3 & R-4, is only tentative.

6. In our judgment in Complaint No. 21 of 1990 Vijay Kumar. Joshi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 20.12.96, we have Held that where the date given for the completion of the flat is tentative, period of which can be reasonably extended by one year. Therefore, according to the principle laid down in that order, the flat should have been completed by 1st April, 1993 and possession delivered thereafter. Therefore, in our opinion, the complainant is entitled to interest on the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- from 1.4.93 to 31.7.93 and we hold accordingly.

7. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the opposite party further strenuously urges that the letter dated 25.3.93 for cancellation of the flat, Annexure R-12, could not have been set aside by the District Forum as this was not the subject matter of the complainant.

8. We are unable to accept this contention. There is no dispute that the escalated price has been challenged by the complainant in his complaint and the cancellation of the flat vide Annexure R-12 is a necessary consequence of the non-payment of the escalated price. Further, this letter was issued, after the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 27.11.93. In the aforementioned circumstances, therefore, in our opinion., non-challenging of the afore-mentioned letter of the cancellation of fl