The complainant has booked a residential flat with the opposite party. The possession of the said flat has not been delivered to her despite she having made substantial payment. She has, therefore, approached the State Commission for possession of the allotted flat, along with compensation etc. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the two different interim orders passed by the State Commission. FA/1767/2018 is directed against the interim order of the State Commission dated 28.8.2018 whereby the appellant/OP, namely, Supertech Ltd. was directed to hand over of the allotted flat to the complainants without prejudice to the respective pleas of the parties, after noticing that the complainants had already paid 95% of the agreed price. FA/2057/2018 has been filed by the complainants against a subsequent interim order of the State Commission dated 22.10.2018, whereby the State Commission directed as under:- “Counsel for the OP has filed copy of order dated 3.10.2018 passed by National Commission in FA No.1767/18 against the order sought to be executed. Copy thereof supplied to the complainant. National Commission has modified the order of this Commission to the effect that OP to handover the possession of the flat to the complainant subject to complainant paying demanded amount to OP and depositing disputed amount with the State Commission. Counsel for complainant states that he has claimed interest for delayed period amounting to Rs.2873916/-, to refund PLC + 10.3% S.T. charged on account of “Park facing flat” with interest @ 12% per annum, to pay Rs.10,57,844/- on account of increased time taken for construction, to withdraw claim towards additional cost of differential / additional area + Service Tax to pay Rs.5 lacs on account of increased number of flats, to order payment of Rs.5 lacs on account of mental agony. All these are yet to be adjudicated. Disputed amount means amount claimed by OP and disputed by complainant. According to OP it demanded Rs.11,90,581.35 vide letter dated 10.12.2016. This letter is stated to have been filed by complainant along with complaint. Another copy thereof has been supplied by OP today. Complainant is directed to deposit the same within four weeks thereafter OP will deliver the possession within another four weeks.” 2. The appellant in FA/1767/2018, namely, Supertech Ltd. is demanding a sum of Rs.1190581.35 as on 10.12.2016 from the complainants before giving possession of the allotted flat to them. The said amount must have increased further amount on account of accrual of interest after the said demand was raised. The case of the complainants on the other hand is that only 5% of the agreed sale consideration which comes to about Rs.2,32,000/- is payable by them to the builder. They are also claiming compensation from the builder under several heads including for the delay in offering possession of the allotted flat. The consumer complaint filed by the complainants is still pending before the State Commission. The State Commission has to decide the consumer complaint on merits and take a view on the claims made by the complainants against the builder. The possession of the flat can be offered to the allottee only as an interim measure, in order to ensure that the flat does not remain vacant during pendency of the consumer complaint. It was for this reason that this Commission vide its interim order dated 3.10.2018 passed in FA/1767/2018 directed delivery of the possession of the flat to the complainants subject to the complainants paying the admitted amount to the builder and depositing the disputed amount with the State Commission. The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions that the complainants are not willing to deposit the disputed amount with the State Commission since in their submission the demand is illegal and not payable whereas they have a substantial claim against the builder in which they are likely to succeed. This is also the submission of the learned counsel for the complainants that the occupancy certificate having been received by the builder only in October 2018, the demand made in December 2018 was illegal. In my view, all these contentions need to be examined by the State Commission while deciding the consumer complaint on merits. Since the matter is pending before the State Commission, it will not be appropriate for this Commission to take a view on the said contentions. However, as far as the possession of the allotted flat is concerned, in my view, the complainants are entitled to the possession only if they deposit the disputed amount with the State Commission while paying the admitted amount if any to the builder. Since complainants are not willing to do so, the possession of the flat cannot be delivered during pendency of the complaint. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission is directed to decide the complaint within six months of the next date of hearing fixed before it. 3. The conveyance charges in FA/1767/2018 if already not received by the complainants shall be sent by the appellant to them by way of demand draft/pay order within one week from today. | 
