The main legal point established in the judgment is that a development authority is liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum for delayed possession in a housing scheme, as established by previous case laws.

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.7.1994 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 1090 of 1993.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant had applied for an MIG house in Govindpuram Housing Scheme. He deposited the entire amount according to the payment schedule, when a house was reserved for him. The possession of the house was promised to be delivered to him in December, 1991. The complainant had also paid penal interest of Rs. 34,164/-. Even after depositing the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- the possession has not been delivered. A notice was, therefore, given by the complainant on 1.9.1993 for delivering possession of the house. The complainant has prayed for delivery of the possession and interest at the rate of 18% per annum on deposited amount of Rs. 2,09,164/- and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- per month as rent which has been paid by the complainant.

3. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the complainant wanted a change in the house. Therefore, he was allotted a house in Govindpuram. The complainant deposited the entire amount alongwith interest. The interest has been demanded in accordance with the rules. The complainant cannot challenge the cost which has been fixed by the opposite party. It is further alleged that the contractor had not completed the work in time and there was a stay order of the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, the possession could not be given in time.

4. The learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties, directed the opposite party to pay interest on the deposited amount from 1.1.1992 at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment. It also awarded Rs. 500/- as cost and Rs. 1,000/- as damages. It also allowed Rs. 200/- as cost which was not paid during the proceedings of the case. It also directed that the possession of the house complete in all respects should be delivered within two months.

5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, Ghaziabad Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as respondent.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the delay has been on account of non-completion of work on time. This plea cannot be allowed to be taken by the appellant because contractors were kept by the appellant and if they were not doing the work properly and in time, then the same could have been got done from other contractors. This cannot be said to be a cause which was beyond their control.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Ghaziabad Development Authority, has argued that on account of the stay order of the Hon’ble High Court the work of development was affected. This argument of the learned Counsel is not factually correct. In the writ petition which was filed before the Hon’ble High Court, the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court is as under :

“List this petition on 30.4.1991. Meanwhile respondent shall not raise any construction on the land in question if constructions have not already commenced.”

9. It is an admitted fact that the Ghaziabad Development Authority had started constructions over the land in dispute before the stay order was passed. Therefore, in terms of this stay order the construction which has already been started by the Ghaziabad Development Authority were not affected and the work continued. The stay order only applies to those lands over which the construction has not already commenced. Moreover, there is no plea of the Ghaziabad Development Authority that the construction has not been started. Therefore, this argument of the learned Counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority cannot be accepted.

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that interest at the rate of 6% per annum should only awarded while the learned Counsel fo