Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 22.10.09 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 25/09. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellants herein primarily on the ..2.. ground that the relief, prayed for, could not be granted by the consumer fora and the complainants should approach the competent civil court by observing as under:- “ This complaint has been filed to seek specific performance of contract. It is contended that the complainants booked two plots in the colony being developed by the opposite party-builder and paid Rs.10 lacs as advance towards consideration. However, later the builders stated that the houses were meant for some other officers and could not be sold to them. Since, it is in the nature of a suit for specific performance, the remedy of the complainants lie in filing suit against the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complaint is misconceived and the same is dismissed with liberty to the complainants to pursue their remedy as available in law.” 2. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 89 days and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed explaining the circumstances due to which this delay was caused. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice and subject to deposit of costs of Rs.5,000/- with the “Consumer Legal Aid A/c” NCDRC, within two weeks from today, we condone the delay. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would assail the impugned ..3.. order primarily on the ground that it is against the settled legal position. We are in agreement with him because the housing activity is one of the services expressly included in the definition of service appearing in section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint in the case in hand related to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent builder in not handing over the constructed houses to the complainants on the grounds that the houses were meant for some other officers. Non-construction of house and not handing over its possession, as per the agreement, if established, would certainly constitute deficiency in service by a builder/developer. In our view, the State Commission has gravely erred in dismissing the complaint at the threshold and not entertaining the same even without issuing notice. Since the complaint was dismissed at the threshold without issuing notice to other side, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the complaint is remitted to the State ..4.. Commission with a direction to proceed with the same in accordance with law. Appellant-Complainant is directed to appear before the State Commission on 05.04.10 for receiving further directions in the matter.