ORDER

This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 05.11.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 315 of 2018.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘development authority’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (the ‘complainant’) and have perused the record.

3. The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 177 days.

Learned counsel for the development authority draws attention to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay and requests that the delay be condoned.

Learned counsel for the complainant does not oppose, submitting that he would prefer putting a period to the lis by a decision on merits.

In the interest of justice, considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, as also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel, and in order to decide the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on the threshold of limitation, the delay is being condoned.

4. Brief relevant facts, as evince from a reading of the complaint, the written version and the appraisal made by the State Commission, are that the complainant had applied on 12.0