Directions given in the previous order dated 31.3.2011 have not been complied with till date.  Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to comply with the directions.  We decline the prayer.

-2-

We have heard Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions.

The facts and circumstances of the case, which led to the filing of the complaint and thereafter the orders being passed by the fora below, are amply-noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end.  In our view, the District Consumer Forum had gravely erred in ordering the refund of a sum of Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant as alternative relief in lieu of the main relief of possession of the shop in question.  In appeal, on a correct appreciation of the matter, the State Commission has corrected that error in the order of the District Consumer Forum and has directed the petitioner-builder/developer to give possession of shop No. 4 to the complainant within 60 days and has rightly deleted the alternate relief of refund of Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant.  Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material obtaining on record, in particular the agreements reached between the father of the complainant and the petitioner-builder and that the builder had tried to take undue advantage of certain proceedings which were filed in civil court, which were not relevant for the

-3-

purpose, in our view, the order passed by the State Commission is eminently justified and suffers from no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for any interference by this Commission.

The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed.