PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Petitioner herein is the original complainant in this case and the respondent Authority was the OP before the District Forum. For the sake of convenience, in this order they have been referred to according to their status before the District Forum. 2. The complainant filed a consumer complaint against the OP Authority alleging deficiency in service against it. It was pleaded by him that as per public advertisement he had booked a tenement at Wadala Truck Terminus on 08.02.1985. Initially he deposited the booking price and he was to get lease for 80 years. He paid Rs.1,72,250/- in installments to the OP Authority on 31.03.1996. He received letter from OP Authority that those who have paid full amount would get tenement booked for a period of 30 years on lease. Having noticed that the OP Authority had unilaterally changed the terms and conditions and feeling cheated with this action, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum claiming refund of the amount along with interest @ 21% along with compensation and cost. On appraisal of the issues raised and the evidence adduced, the District Forum allowed the complaint giving substantial relief to the complainant in terms of the following directions:- “1. Complaint No. 266 / 97 is being allowed. 2. Opp. Party should comply with following orders within a period of 45 days of date of this order. a) Opp. Party should deliver possession of the dispute premises to the complainant on lease for the term of 30 years as mentioned above. b) Opp. Party should pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs.1,72,250/- for the period from 1.1.94 till date of this order. OR The amount of Rs.1,72,250/- (Rupees One Lakh seventy two thousand two hundred fifty only) should be refunded to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 19.4.93 till date of this order. 3. Opp. Party should within 45 days of date of this order pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as a compensation for the inconvenience and mental anguish caused to the complainant plus an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) by way of costs, thus aggregating to Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand only). 4. If the opp. Party fail to comply with the above orders within the prescribed period, complainant will be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of this order till actual payment of the above amount.” 3. The OP Authority challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission which has allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner /complainant vide its impugned order dated 18.02.2009. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant challenging the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner/complainant is that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is an ex parte order without affording him an opportunity of presenting his case before the State Commission. On merits, it is submitted by learned counsel that as per condition no.VII of the allotment letter dated 01.10.1986 in question, the OP Authority was to deliver the possession of the premises in question within 6 months of the payment of the fourth and final installment. It is submitted that even though the last installment was paid on 09.04.1993, the possession was delayed by the OP Authority far beyond the permissible period of six months envisaged in the aforesaid condition of the allotment letter and hence the petitioner/complainant was entitled to the payment of interest for the period of delay. Since the petitioner has already got possession of the premises in question during the pendency of the litigation, it is submitted that he is entitled for other reliefs granted to him by the District Forum vide its order dated 29.06.2007 excepting the delivery of the possession of the premises which order has been wrongly set aside by the State Commission by its impugned order. On the other hand, counsel for the OP Authority has submitted that the possession of the disputed premises has already been delivered to the complainant and duly accepted by him during the pendency of the litigation and hence no interest remains payable to him on the amount of deposit. The matter being squarely covered by the ratio of the judgement laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank [(2007) 6 SCC 711], the impugned order passed by the State Commission relying thereon is perfectly in order. Besides this, he has also drawn our attention to the contents of para VII of the allotment letter relied on by the petitioner for claiming the interest and submitted that this para provides for certain situations in which the delay in handing over of the possession of the premises is permissible and one of the situations is in respect of delay on account of orders of Government or local authority. In the present case, admittedly the delay was caused on account of delay in issuance of occupancy certificate by the BMC in spite of completion of the construction of the tenement and hence the OP Authority was not in a position to deliver the possession to the complainant. The para in question referred to by both the parties is reproduced below for the sake of convenience of reference:- “Possession of Premises : Possession of the premises shall be delivered only after the total premium has been paid in full (as prescribed above) and approximately within six months of the date of payment of the 4th and final instalment, barring unforeseen circumstances including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing reasons, the non-availability of steel or, cement or other building materials, or war, riot, civil commotion, strike, go slow, lock out, or act of God or any other notice or orders of the Court of law or the Government or local authority and any other authority.” (Emphasis provided) 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the OP Authority that the delay was not deliberate and was caused on account of situation beyond its control. It is further pointed out by the counsel that grievance regarding reduction in the lease of tenement is not valid since as per latest order of the Govt. of Maharashtra, the period of lease has already been extended from 30 to 80 years. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are convinced that there is no merit in the petition of the complainant and the same is liable for dismissal. It is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. | 
