In this revision by the opposite parties, challenge is to the order dated 4.09.09 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur partly allowing appeal filed by the complainant / respondents and directing the opposite parties to pay interest on Rs.8,50,000/- from 1.1.2006 to 23.02.2007 @ 7% p.a. Petitioner board had floated self-financing scheme for MIG Duplex Delux type at Kabir Nagar, Raipur. Tentative cost of house was determined as Rs.8,50,000/- which was to be paid in instalments. Respondents, who booked a house under the scheme, paid the last instalment due on 30.09.05 within time. Thereafter additional amount of Rs.85,081/- was demanded by the petitioners which was payable by 31.03.07. It was alleged that on final costing the price of the house had increased by Rs.85,081/-. This amount too was paid by the respondent and possession of the house was given to them sometime in April 2007. State Commission while awarding interest for the said period was of the view that there was delay in handing over possession of the house by the board. As noticed above, last instalment of tentative price of Rs.8,50,000/- payable by 30.09.05, was paid by the respondents. Additional demand of Rs.85,081/- raised sometime in March 2007 was paid by them. It was expected of the petitioner board to have delivered possession of the house within reasonable period of the receiving of the last instalment amount. Obviously, there was delay in delivery of possession of the house to the respondents. Having heard Ms. Aggarwal, we do not find any illegality or jurisdiction error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed. This order however will not be treated as a precedent in any other matter.