Petitioner/Opposite Party being aggrieved by order dated 6.9.2007, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, ‘State Commission’) in (First Appeal No.729 of 2004) has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant was allotted plot No.386-A, Sector-45, Urban Estate, Gurgaon vide allotment letter no.230 dated 5.2.2001. The possession of said plot was also offered to him vide same letter. However, basic amenities such as water supply, electricity, sewerage and roads had not been provided. It is the case of respondent that representations were made to the petitioner from May, 2001 till March, 2002 stating that there has been no development of basic services required for the occupancy of a plot. The electrical poles have no wires and no electricity has been provided for. In these circumstances, respondent averred that he is not bound to pay the interest as the same can only be paid after completion of the basic amenities. 3. Petitioner/Opposite Party contested the complaint. Allegations of non-availability of basic amenities was denied. It had been stated that possession was handed over on completion of all the development works. As such, there was no deficiency of service on its part and respondent was bound to pay interest on the outstanding balance. 4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 28.3.2003, appointed Mr. Jai Gopal, Advocate as Local Commissioner with the directions to visit the site in question and give the existing state of affairs regarding the plot in question. He had submitted his report on 10.4.2003 wherein it had been stated that though electric poles have been erected, there is no transformer in the nearby area. Sewer trenches for the laying the sewer pipes have been dug out. Some portion of the road is pacca and some kuccha. Regarding water supply, it had been stated that water is coming from a tubewell existing in a park near the plot but the pressure is very low and there are no water tanks or boosting stations in the surrounding area. The tubewell is the only source of water supply. Further, it had been stated that no footpath exists on the road side. 5. Thereafter, District Forum vide order dated 20.6.2003 allowed the complaint. It directed the petitioner to withdraw/quash the earlier offer of possession of the plot and not to charge interest on the due/balance instalments till the date of physical possession after providing complete civic amenities. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same, vide the impugned order. 7. Hence, the present revision. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that development was fully complete in the area, as apparent from letter dated 18.4.2002 addressed by Executive Engineer, HUDA, Division No.1, Gurgaon to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon. Under these circumstances, the respondent had no case. Thus, both the fora below have committed error in allowing the complaint of the respondent. 10. In support, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in ‘”Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others vs. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd. and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 109”. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that since possession of the plot has already been handed over to the respondent, present petition has become infructuous. 12. District Forum while allowing the complaint held; “Photographs taken on 6.10.2002, 17.1.2003 and 31.3.2003 clearly show that there is hardly any provision of basic amenities and that development work is still going on at the site of the plot in question. It has also been argued that the complainant has been representing to HUDA since May, 2001 that offer of the possession be deferred till all the basic amenities are made available. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon his written reply and has stated that development work is complete and there is no reason why interest should not be charged. He has not controverted the report of the L.C. but has placed reliance on it to the extent that Plot No.386-A/45, Gurgaon, the plot adjacent is under construction and that a pucca road exists in front of the plots. After perusing the L.C. report, we are of the opinion that the allegations in the complaint have merit. It is clear from the photographs and the report of the Local Commissioner that basic developments such as the amenities of water, electricity, sewerage etc. do not exist. An allottee cannot be expected to live in such conditions. As such, no interest can be imposed on the allottee till the basic civil amenities/facilities are provided for. The offer document clearly states that possession of the plots shall be delivered to the allottees in about three years from the date of allotment. However, possession may be given earlier if the development of basic services in the scheme is fully completed before the above mentioned period. At the time of offer of possession, the basic services i.e. water supply, approached roads, sewerage and electrification have to be made available in sector. As such HUDA is bound by its terms of offer and till the basic amenities are provided, he is not entitled to charged interest. 13. The State Commission, while dismissing the appeal observed as under; “At the threshold of the arguments learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that as per letter bearing memo No.43 dated 30.4.2007, the possession of the plot has been offered to the complainant and thus the stand taken by the complainant stands fully established on record that no offer of possession of the plot earlier was given to her as per letter bearing memo No.230 dated 28.2.2001. It was further submitted by him that on 30.4.2007 the possession of the allotted plot had been delivered to the complainant by the official of the opposite parties. This factual position has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments and that being so there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.” 14. It is an admitted fact that possession of the plot in question had already been delivered to the respondent by the petitioner as early as on 30.4.2007. When petitioner itself had handed over possession of the plot to the respondent about seven years ago, now nothing remains to be decided in this case. 15. However, the petitioner’s stand is that as per affidavit dated 21.8.2008 of Shri Yashinder Singh, Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurgaon, “possession had been offered in compliance of the order of the District Forum subject to the decision of higher court. A copy of possession letter is being appended herewith as Annexure A/1. 16. After going through the above copy of possession letter dated 30.4.2007 annexed with the affidavit, we note that it has nowhere been mentioned in this offer of possession that “possession of the plot in question has been offered subject to the decision of the higher court.” Thus, no reliance can be placed on the aforesaid affidavit of the petitioner’s official. 17. The decision of ”Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others vs. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd. and others (supra) is not applicable at all to the facts of the present case. 18. As possession of the plot, in question had already been handed over to the respondent about seven years ago without any pre-condition, the present petition does not survive and as such has become infructuous. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands disposed of as such. 19. Parties shall bear their own cost. | 
