V. K. JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The respondent, Rajasthan Housing Board notified a Scheme called Kalpatru Scheme 1987 for the firm allotment of houses within a period of 10 years. The scheme envisaged allotment of ready built houses, to the registrants, within the specified period. Some of the features of the scheme read as under: . To make a house available to the applicant in a period of 10 years. **** 3.2. Double benefit of compound interest @ 9 per cent and guarantee of definitely getting a house in a period of 10 years. **** 3.4 Definiteness of cost and availability of the house because of guarantee of getting a house under the fixed time programme. 2. The petitioner before this Court applied for allotment of a built up house under the above referred scheme. In the application form, the petitioner disclosed his address as Pawan Electric & Machinery Store, Station Road, Sikar. A house in the aforesaid scheme was reserved for the petitioner on 15-11-1993 but in the communication sent to him his address was wrongly written as Pawan Electric & Machinery Store, Station Road, Jaipur. As a result, the reservation letter was not received by the petitioner. It appears that a duplicate reservation letter dated 08-11-1993 was later obtained by the petitioner from the office of Rajasthan Housing Board and vide letter dated 16-02-1994, he informed the respondent, Rajasthan Housing Board that his address had been wrongly written in the reservation letter. He sought issue of a fresh reservation letter to him at the address given in the said letter. However, no allotment was made to the petitioner and eventually Kalpatru Scheme was closed by the respondent on account of non-availability of land. Vide letter dated 18-01-2000, the respondent informed the petitioner that it was not possible to give an independent house to him under the Kalpatru Scheme and if he wanted allotment of flats in Mansarovar and flat/independent house in Sanganer Scheme, he should exercise option for such allotment within 15 days. The petitioner applied for allotment of flat in Sanganer Scheme but did not succeed. On 24-08-2004, the petitioner applied to the respondent for refund of the money which he had deposited under the Kalpatru Scheme, but the aforesaid request of the petitioner was never acceded to by the respondent, as a result of which not only registration money but the deposit which he had made with the respondent continued to be with the respondent. 3. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the District Forum seeking allotment as per the 1993 reservation letter issued to him under the Kalpatru Scheme. He had also sought allotment of a flat under the self-financing scheme 2005. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had applied for allotment of a flat under the self-financing scheme 2005 in Pratap Nagar but had not been allotted a house. Therefore, he had also sought allotment of a house in the aforesaid scheme. The District Forum vide its order dated 18-03-2006 directed the respondent to allot a house to the petitioner in Kalpatru Scheme at the rates mentioned in the reservation letter dated 08-11-1993, which the respondent had sent at the wrong address. Vide allotment letter dated 30-06-2006, the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board allotted a house/flat to the petitioner in Pratap Nagar, for a consideration of Rs.15,31,385/-. After adjusting the sum of Rs.1,36,654/- which was lying deposited with it, the respondent required the petitioner to pay Rs.13,94,731/- out of which Rs.10,04,706/- was to be paid in installments and Rs.3,90,025/- was to be paid before taking possession. In view of the aforesaid order the allotment of flat in Pratap Nagar was accepted by the petitioner under protest and he made a specific endorsement in this regard on the letter of the respondent dated 18-07-2006. 4. The respondent, Rajasthan Housing Board preferred an appeal against order of the District Forum dated 18-03-2006. Vide impugned order dated 17-03-2008, the State Commission allowed the appeal holding that the price prevailing on the date of issue of the allotment letter would be charged from the complainant/petitioner. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of this petition. 5. As noted earlier by us the Kalpatru Scheme of 1987 assured definite allotment of a house to the registrants within a period of 10 years. The terms & conditions as extracted earlier by us leave no doubt that every registrant under the scheme was to be allotted a house within 10 years of registration. Since the petitioner had obtained registration under the aforesaid scheme on 14/15-11-1990, he should have been allotted a house on or before 15-11-2000. Non-availability of land could not be a justified ground for the failure of the respondent to allot a house to the petitioner in terms of the Kalpatru Scheme. In fact, the respondent should have ensured availability of land before making a commitment to allot a built up house to every registrant within a period of 10 years. The respondent, therefore, was clearly deficient in providing services to the petitioner by not allotting a built up house to him on or before 15-11-2000 and by sending the reservation letter dated 08-11-1993 at a wrong address. In our opinion, since the respondent was under an obligation to provide a built up house to the complainant/petitioner on or before 15-11-2000, it cannot charge a price higher than the price prevalent on 15-11-2000 from him. In view of the failure of the respondent to fulfill its commitment, we see no justification for charging the price prevailing on the date of issue of the allotment letter dated 30-06-2006 alloting a flat in Pratap Nagar to the petitioner/complainant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that had the respondent sent the reservation letter dated 08-11-1993 at a correct address the petitioner would have got allotment at the price prevailing in the year 1993 and, therefore, he should not be penalized for the mistake committed by the respondent in sending the reservation letter to a wrong address. We, however, find no merit in the contention since we find that on receipt of a letter from the respondent, the petitioner instead of challenging its decision not to allot a house to him under the Kalpatru Scheme exercised the option for allotment of a flat in Sanganer though he did not succeed. Nothing prevented the complainant/petitioner from approaching the District Forum on receipt of the aforesaid letter from the respondents. That, however, was not done and the petitioner approached the District Forum much later in April 2005. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the petitioner had applied for the refund of the money deposited by him he is not entitled to allotment at the rate prevalent in the year 2000. The contention could have been accepted had the respondent acceded to the request made by the petitioner and refunded the money deposited by him, but, that having not been done nothing really turns on the petitioner having sought refund of the money deposited by him. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, we direct that the respondent shall charge the price prevailing on 15-11-2000 in respect of the flat allotted to the petitioner/complainant in Pratap Nagar. However, in order to balance the equities and considering that had the allotment been made on or before 15-11-2000, the petitioner would have been required to pay money on that very date, we also direct that in addition to the price prevailing on 15-11-2000, the respondent shall also be entitled to charge interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with effect from 15-11-2000 till the date payment was made by the petitioner in terms of the allotment letter dated 30-06-2006. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.