Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 04.01.10 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, ..2.. Lucknow, (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint no. 37/93. The complaint before the State Commission related to deficiency in service on the part of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad in not delivering the possession of 20 houses in “Mahadevi Jharkhandi Yozna, Gorakhhpur which they had agreed to sell to the complainant despite having received the entire consideration and even the further amount towards penalty etc. The possession of 18 houses was handed over to the complainant during the pendency of complaint on 05.1.95 but the remaining two houses were still not handed over and, therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances and the material produced on record, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent with the following directions:- “In view of the discussions made above, we hold that the complaint deserves to be partially allowed. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed with costs which we quantify at Rs.5,000/- and the Parishad is directed to hand over possession of the two remaining houses no. 115 and 116 within two months with execution of the requisite conveyance deed and also pay interest on the amount of Rs.17,71,702/- @ 10% p.a. from 05.04.91 to 05.01.95. The Parishad is further directed to pay interest from 05.04.91 to the date of delivery of possession of the two houses on the same rate as above on the proportionate price of two houses i.e. Rs.1,62,750/-.” ..3.. We have heard Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, learned counsel for the respondent and have considered their respective submissions. Counsel for the appellants would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the State Commission has granted double benefit to the complainant while giving the relief and also on the ground that dispute raised before the State Commission related to breach of contract and, therefore, the consumer forum is not the proper Forum/Tribunal for deciding such a dispute. However, Mr. Buddy A. Ranganathan, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the State Commission. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that the appellant Parishad ought not to have approached this Commission with the present appeal because we feel that in view of the nature and extent of the deficiency which can be said to be established on record in not delivering the possession of the agreed houses to the complainant within the stipulated period or even much thereafter, the relief granted to the complainant is eminently justified being in consonance with the legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We do not see any good reason to interfere with the impugned order. The first appeal is ..4.. dismissed in limine. However, on request of counsel for the appellants, the time for compliance of the directions given by the State Commission is extended by further six weeks. In these circumstances, we make no order as to costs.