1.      Heard counsel for the petitioner.

2.      There is concurrent finding of fact that in spite of the agreement dated 15.03.2005 as well as deposit of entire amount by the respondent, when the respondent was offered possession by letter dated 06.04.2005, he found that there was illegal occupation in the flat and he had written two letters to the opposite party to remove illegal occupation, but they have failed to remove illegal occupation. Therefore, the complaint was filed in the year 2005 for refund of sale consideration paid.  A perusal of the written reply of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has admitted that there was occupation on the date of offer of possession by labour, who had been working there.

The petitioner stated that the same was removed by the housing department as informed by letter dated 13.05.2005. 

There is nothing on record that the petitioner has ever informed/offered fresh possession to the respondent after 13.05.2005.  The concurrent findings do not suffer from any illegality.  The revision petition has no merit and it is dismissed.