Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—All these complaints can be disposed of by a common order as these appeals involve similar facts and raise common fundamental questions of law.

2. It would be convenient to refer to the facts of Original Complaint No. 51 of 1993.

3. The relevant facts necessary to be mentioned for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant in pursuance of the Scheme floated by the Opposite Party in the year 1986 under 4th Partially Self Financing Scheme for Government employees, applied for Type 'B' plot. The plot, according to the complainant, was required to be delivered before December, 1987. It appears that the delivery of the possession of the plot was delayed by the Opposite Party and that the possession was delivered on 29.12.1992 (Annexure R XI) and the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement was executed with the Opposite Party on 14.12.1992 (Annexure R XII). The complain ant filed the present complaint on 21.9.1993, admittedly, after taking over the possession of the plot and entering into the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement.

4. The fundamental question raised by the Opposite Party which requires our consideration is whether the complainant, af