Complainant/respondent was allotted flat No.M/1/635 by the petitioner on hire-purchase for a consideration of Rs.1,89,952/- on the second floor in the year 2000. Respondent occupied the flat. Taking the plea that the construction of the flat was very poor, he occupied another flat No.M/2/640 on the ground floor. Apart from paying 10% of the total consideration, the respondent paid only one instalment of Rs.3,125/-. Respondent did not deposit the rest of the instalments and filed a complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed in the following terms: “The present application is hereby allowed. The opponent is hereby directed to decide the present market price of the Flat No.M-1-635 through the government approved valuer and the amount of loan installment not paid by the complainant shall be deducted from the said amount after giving set out the amount of interest and the remaining amount shall have to be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of passing this order. In the alteration, the opponent shall have to allot a flat having all facilities which were given in the earlier flat to the complainant, failing which, the opponent shall have to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with 8.00% interest from the date of filing complaint. The opponent shall bear own costs and the opponent is directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards costs.” -3- Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the present revision petition. Since the respondent was occupying two flats, notice was issued to the respondent. Execution proceedings were stayed. The case came up for hearing on 26th July, 2011. Counsel for the respondent stated before us that the respondent was occupying the flat No.M/2/640 only and not flat No.M/1/635 originally allotted to him. Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the respondent be put to option as to which of the flats he wants to occupy. Case was adjourned to 1st September, 2011. On 1st September, 2011 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had vacated flat No.M/1/635. Counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent had deposited Rs.25,000/- and shall pay the balance amount of the instalment due upto date within two months, failing which he shall vacate the flat. He undertook to pay the future instalments from September, 2011 [default period is from July, 2000 to August, 2011]. Case was adjourned to 4th November, 2011. Counsel for the respondent circulated a letter seeking discharge on the ground that the instructing counsel Shri Dhirajlal Shekhliya has -4- instructed her to file the application stating “NO INSTRUCTION”. Respondent or the instructing counsel was not present. Respondent had sent his written arguments by post, which was received at 2.30 p.m. a day earlier. Revision petition was dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner, which was later on restored on 10th February, 2012 and the case was ordered to be listed for today. Office was directed to inform the respondent as well as the counsel about the adjourned date of hearing. Notice sent to the respondent has not been received back served or otherwise. Notice sent to his instructing counsel has been received back duly served. Respondent is not present. Proceeded ex-parte. Respondent has vacated flat No. M/1/635. Petitioner is put at liberty to dispose it of in any manner it likes. Petitioner is directed to allot flat No.M/2/640 to the respondent. Petitioner would be at liberty to recover the price alongwtih arrears of flat No.M/2/640 prevalent in the year 2000 in accordance with law. Revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. | 
