These two revision petitions have been filed by both the opposite parties before the District Forum, where the respondents / complainant Javahar Shashikant Jardosh and Smt. Tarunika Alias Rachna Javahar Jardosh, had filed a complainant a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant was the absolute owner of the land situated in the limits of Surat Municipal Corporation bearing survey no. 159/A, Part, T.P. Scheme No. 9, Plot No. 56. The petitioners were given the land for development according to the sanctioned plan which they did and developed the building known as ‘Shivsmruti Complex’. Subsequent to this an agreement was entered between the parties for ownership of a flat No. 301/A ‘A’ wing for a consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-. When all the money was paid, yet when the sale-deed was not being executed by the petitioners, a complaint was filed before the District Forum by the respondent / complainant, where it was contested by the petitioners before us, which was allowed and the petitioners were directed to execute the sale-deed of the property in favour of the respondent / complainant at the cost of the complainant within a period of 30 days. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed appeals before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition before us. We heard the Counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the material on record. It is the case of the petitioner that they are willing to execute the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission but the only dispute is with regard to payment of Rs.72,780/- for the additional work carried out by the petitioners. We have very carefully gone through the material on record. It is not in dispute that the flat was booked in 1989 and it was to be completed within a period of 2 years whereas the flats were ready for possession only in 1995 on account of some dispute. As per by now accepted proposition of law, for delay in delivery of possession of plot / flat / house, the consumer is entitled to interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, which has not been granted. If on equity both the lower fora have not conceded to the payment of Rs.72,780/- as demanded by the petitioners, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum for the simple reason that in equity the demanded amount will be much lower than the interest which could have been awarded for the delay in delivery. It is also important to note that nowhere at any stage before the lower fora any development agreement entered between the parties has been brought on record so as to appreciate the terms of the development agreement, which has to be held against the petitioners. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in both the revision petitions. Dismissed.