On an application filed by the respondent/complainant, a plot measuring 332 sq. yards was allotted to the respondent.  The total cost of the plot was Rs.17,85,000/-.  The price was to be paid in five equated installments.  Respondent paid the sum of Rs.4,46,250/- being 25% at the first instance and later on, paid the remaining amount in four equated installments with some delay.  In all, as on 26.10.2010 the respondent had paid Rs.20,15,624/-.  Since the

-2-

possession was not handed over, respondent filed the complaint seeking a direction to the petitioner to hand over the possession of the plot to him; to wave of the demand raised by them and to execute the Conveyance Deed in his favour and also to pay Rs.4,90,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience.

          District Forum allowed the complaint, quashed the demand raised by the petitioner and directed it to recalculate the amount after deducting the amount paid by the complainant.  Petitioner was also directed to recalculate the interest and issue fresh demand if any it was also held that the OPs cannot charge the extension fee.

          Being aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal.  The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to recalculate the amount as per the directions, after deducting the amount paid by the complainant to the petitioner and issue fresh demand notice, if any.

          During the pendency of the first appeal, respondent was handed over the possession of the plot on 05.9.2007.

Fora below have held that since the possession of the plot was given to the respondent on 05.9.2007, petitioner was not entitled to

-3-

charge the extension fee; as per condition 11 of the allotment letter Ex.C-2 the allottee could put up the building within three years of the delivery of possession without paying any extension fee; that it was not possible for the respondent to construct the building as the possession of the plot had not been delivered to her.  The respondent has been held liable to pay the penal interest.  Petitioner has been permitted to recalculate the amount payable and if there was any outstanding amount then the petitioner could demand the same by issuing notice.  Petitioner is aggrieved by the following directions given by the State Commission in its order:

“There is no dispute that the possession of the plot was delivered by the respondents to the appellant on 5.9.2007, as such, the respondents are not entitled to charge the extension fee from the appellant when the possession was neither offered nor delivered by the respondents to the appellant till 5.9.2007.  The respondents are only entitled to charge the extension fee as per Condition No.11 of the allotment letter Ex C-2 only after the date of delivery of possession i.e. 5.9.2007 if the appellant has not constructed the building within three years from the date of delivery of possession, because it was not possible for the appellant to construct the building

-4-

when the possession was not handed over to her by the respondents.  As such, the respondents are not entitled for any extension fee from the appellant prior to the delivery of possession.”

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The respondent could not be asked to pay the extension fee as the possession was delivered to her on 05.9.2007 during the pendency of the first appeal.  Under condition 11, the allottee can construct the building within three years of the delivery of the possession.  Question of payment of extension fee would arise only if the construction was not put up within three years of the possession.  There was no delay on the part of the respondent in putting up the construction.  It was not possible for the respondent to construct the building as the possession was not handed over to her by the petitioner.  No merits.  Dismissed.