The court ruled that while the final cost for the flats was justified, the imposition of interest for delayed payment was arbitrary as the delay was caused by the Board.

ORDER :

1. The final cost arrived at by the respondents claiming it to be additional cost in respect of the flats sold to the respective petitioners which was allotted pursuant to the advertisement published during the year 2014 and 2015 under the Hire Purchase Scheme is put in issue before this Court through the present petitions.

2. The facts in a nutshell, as could be culled out from the writ petitions, is summarised as under:-

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short ‘the Board’) invited applications under the Hire Purchase Scheme on 21.7.2014, which was concluded on 19.8.2014. In view of the lesser takers, the advertisement was once again republished between July and September, 2015. The flats were constructed in four categories, viz., HIG, MIG-I, MIG-II and LIG with the tentative cost being fixed at Rs.58,60,000/-, Rs.40,71,000/-, Rs.40,64,000/- and Rs.27,33,000/- with a note that the final cost will be informed at the time of handing over.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that consequent to the said advertisements, the respective petitioners submitted their initial application on various dates as mentioned in the writ petition, with which there is no quarrel, and the tentative cost, as stated in the above was fixed and towards initial payment, the respective petitioners also submitted the said amount.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that allotment intimation letters were issued provisionally allotting the respective flats to the respective petitioners with a clear stand that the cost of the flat will be informed after completion of 80% of the construction work and that the payment details and other monthly instalment will be informed at the time of issue of allotment order. It is the further averment of the petitioners that the respondent have not intimated the cost of the flat as communicated, but the fact remains that the petitioners have paid the entire amount to the respondents as per the value fixed in the advertisement towards the cost of the flat.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioners that provisional allotment was issued in the year 2017 in which the tentative cost was fixed and the petitioners were directed to pay 25% of the flat cost on or before 30 days from the date of receipt of the provisional allotment order.

6. It is the further averment of the petitioners that a regular allotment order was issued in the year 2018 demanding the balance price towards the cost of the flat, which was also duly complied with by the petitioners and that the petitioners took over possession of their respective flats. In fine, it is the case of the petitioners that they have paid not only the application money and the 25% cost, but also the entire balance cost of the flat, as prescribed in the advertisement. Further lease-cum-sale agreement was entered into with the Board by the respective petitioners.

7. When It is the further averment of the petitioners that when the matter stood thus, to their shock and surprise, the respective impugned letters were by the petitioners in which the Board had communicated the final cost arrived at for the respective flats and called upon the respective petitioners to pay the differential amount with interest. It is the specific case of the petitioners that in the said letter, the manner in which the said amount has been arrived at has not been specified and further the said fixation is exorbitant notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have paid the full amount towards the sale consideration of the flats.

8. It is the averment of the petitioners that t