Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. The defendants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed to the effect that the defendants can charge only 10% interest on the instalments and the resumption orders could not have been passed as the defendants failed to prove unauthorised construction of basement by the plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff gave highest bid of Rs. 4,00,000/- for Booth No. 103, Sector 9, Panchkula which was allotted to him vide Memo No. 12351 dated 14.9.1988. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 40,000/- being 10% of the bid amount and another sum of Rs. 60,000/- to make up 25% of the total bid amount. Balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-was required to be paid in 10 half yearly instalments along-with interest @ 10% and in case of default, the defendants had a right to initiate action for imposition of penalty and resumption of the booth. It is claimed by the plaintiff that defendant No. 2. had wrongly calculated the due amount and in case of imposition of penalty for non-payment of instalment, the resumption proceedings should not have been initiated. It was also allege