1. This revision petition challenges the concurrent findings and directions of the fora below. The brief facts are that the respondent-complainant was allotted a flat GK-IV/102A in Cyan Khand Building in the "instant allotment scheme" floated by the petitioner Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) on 15.06.1996 after receiving the registration amount of Rs. 37000/-. As per the "allotment letter and payment schedule" (pg. 42), the "estimated cost" was Rs.  96 lacs and the balance amount was to be paid in 8 instalments, the last of Rs.31,037/- to be paid on 15.06.1998. However, the respondent paid the amounts on or before 21.06.1996 after which, as per the complainant, the "tentative" cost got finally crystallised by GDA's letter dated 25.09.1996 intimating the "final cost" of Rs.4,21,300 and asking for differential payment of Rs.25,300/- plus lease rent of Rs.5,280/- which amounts were also paid on 14/15.10.96, and accordingly, the possession was obtained on 14.10.1996. As per the complainant, despite lapse of considerable time till 2003, the petitioner did not execute the conveyance but on the other hand sent a further illegal and belated demand notice on 04.01.2003 for the alleged differential consideration amount of Rs. 1,18,843/- to be paid before 31.01.2003, failing which, interest at 21% was payable. Aggrieved by such illegal demand, CC/236/2003 was filed before the District Forum, Ghaziabad, wherein, allowing the complaint and quashing the demand notice dated 04.01.2003, the Forum passed the following order:

In this case, according to the letter of Annexure 01 submitted by the complainant, the above mentioned building number Gyan Khand IV102A was allotted to the complainant on 15-6-1996 by the Opposite Party. Whose final price was fixed at Rs 4,21,300 as per the letter dated 25/9/1996 from Annex 02 to the Opposite Party, this price was the final price and not the estimated value.

The above amount was given to the Opposite Party by the complainant in the form 6C/10, to 6C/14 i.e. Annexure 10 to 14, after paying by the complainant to the Opposite Party GDA. Possession of allotted building handed over on 30-10-1996 as per Annexure 03 Form 6C/03 and while increasing the price of the said building to the complainant on 4-1-03 after more than 6 years after handing over the possession to the complainant on dated 30-10-96, and by increasing the value of price to Rs. 5,93,843 instead of the actual value of the building Rs.4,21000/- and the amount of difference of building price of Rs. 1,18843 was demanded. In the light of the principle propounded in the above mentioned cases, the demand for a different amount, which is being raised after 6 years of giving possession of the building, is unreasonable.

It is true that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to consider the justification of the price, but at the same time, the legal position is clear that action cannot be taken in relation to the building constructed for price escalation after a long period of several years ie 5-6 years after giving possession, due to which the price escalation action by the Opposite Party is unfair. In this regard, the legal precedent of the Hon'ble National Commission 1(1995) CPJ Page 17 (NC)Housing Board Haryana vs Kartar Singh etc. presented by the Opposite Party, does not benefit the Opposite Party in our humble opinion on the grounds mentioned earlier in this matter.

Therefore, on the basis of the entire appreciation mentioned above, after receiving the price of the said building allotted to the complainant from the complainant and after more than 06 years of handing over the possession on dated 30/10/1996, the way in which the additional amount of Rs. 1,18843 is demanded for the allotted building as per the letter dated 04/1/03 of the Opposite Party, such an act being unfair comes under deficiency in the service of the complainant. Due to which it is natural for the complainant has suffer mental pain.

Relief and Cost: Final Order On the basis of the above-mentioned whole appreciation, by accepting the complaint submitted by the complainant Ajay Kumar Singh, the unfair difference amount demanded of Rs. 1,18,8443 made by the Opposite Party GDA through the letter no. 206 dated 4-1-03 is canceled. The Opposite Party is ordered to execute the registration of the building number Gyan Khand IV102A Indirapuram allotted to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of this decision, only at the cost paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party in the past. Apart from this, the Opposite Party should pay Rs 5000 as compensation to the complainant and Rs 1000 only for the said period as suit expenses and bear its own suit expenses.

2. The GDA took the matter before the State Commission in appeal wherein two fundamental grounds were raised. The first, it was urged that before taking over the possession on 14.10.1996, the respondents, by way of an affidavit dated 29.08.1996 agreed and undertook in para 2 and 3 of the said affidavit, that the price of the unit as determined by the GDA shall be paid, and in the event of any objections to such final price, the vacant possession of the unit would be handed over to the GDA, and that the possession obtained by him would be merely as a licensee and that the GDA, in the event of non-payment or objections, would have authority to re-possess the unit. The second ground was that the determination of and propriety of the price of the unit is strictly a matter between the parties and the court and Fora would have no authority to declare a reduced price of the unit or to quash the valid demand notice of the GDA. It was the case of the petitioner that reminders for due payments in terms of validly issued demand notice were issued on 07.02.2003, 15.0 2003, 28.05.2003, 19.04.2005, 16.06.2005, 29.01.2006 and 31.05.2006 wherein it was informed that not only no interest is charged on the incremental amount till the date of demand, but even 10% discount in the incremental price is offered. The allotment letter disclosed only tentative price. The final incremental price was to be paid by the purchaser as undertaken in the affidavit and therefore, the grievance being merely of the validity or propriety of the "final cost", interference by the District Forum when the demand notice was perfectly valid was unjustified. Therefore the District Forum's order needed to be set aside and complaint needed dismissal. However, the State Commission, dismissing the appeal, passed the following order:

Relief and Cost:- (Final Order) On the basis of the above-mentioned whole appreciation, accepting the complaint presented by the complainant Ajay Kumar Singh, the unreasonable demand of Rs. 1,18,843/- made by the Opposite Party PDA through its letter no. 206 dated 04.01.2003 is canceled. The Opposite Party is ordered to execute the registration deed of building number Gyan Khand IV 102A Indirapuram allotted to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of this decision, at the cost paid by the complainant earlier to the Opposite Party. Apart from this, the Opposite Party should pay Rs. 5,000 (five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 1,000 (one thousand only) as suit expenses in the said period and bear the cost of his own defense.

That our attention was drawn by the learned counsel appearing for the Authority, that the additional amount sought by the Authority from the respondent/complainant is Rs 1,18,843 which according to the Authority was payable by the complainant due to the increased cost of the building and it was stated that due to non-fulfillment of the demand of the above increased amount by the complainant, the Authority did not ensure the registration as per the requirement of the complainant. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The decision and order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Vidhan District Forum has been perused and after examining all the documents available on the record and keeping in view the facts mentioned in the decision and order passed by the learned District Forum. We come to the conclusion that the decision passed by the learned District Forum is completely legal and clear.

The fact is not disputed that the amount proposed by the Authority by the respondent/complainant was deposited in the month of June, 1996 of Rs. 3,96,000, after that, the additional amount demanded by the authority again Rs 30,580 was also deposited by the respondent/complainant within the time period, after that the authority got the possession of the building to the complainant on date 30.10.1996. That is, on the date on which the complainant got the possession of the building by the appellant authority, the building was almost completed on that date, therefore, the process of registration not being done by the Authority year after year was completely illegal and against the law in our view and it does not seem appropriate to demand Rs 1,18,843 as additional amount from the complainant again in the year 200

Keeping in view all the facts, the present appeal is dismissed. The appellant is ordered to ensure 100% compliance of the decision and order passed by the District Forum within a period of one month. That is, after ensuring the registration of the allotted building of the respondent/complainant, as well as providing the amount of damages to the respondent / complainant within the stipulated period, otherwise in the event of not doing so, Rs 25,000 will also payable to the respondent/complainant by the appellant authority as penalty.

It is necessary to clarify here that after purchasing the stamp for registration, the respondent/complainant should submit a photocopy of the above purchased stamp along with an application to the Secretary, Ghaziabad Authority within 02 weeks to ensure that action is taken on it without delay.

Mr. Siddharth Sengar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner-GDA submits that a. specific ground was raised before the State Commission to the effect that the respondent-complainant had, at the time of obtaining the possession, executed an affidavit by which he had undertaken to pay the balance of the price as subsequently demanded by the petitioner. At the time of obtaining the possession, the respondent was well aware, as was expressly stated in the letter of allotment (page 51), that the price of Rs.3,96,000/- was only tentative and that the final price was to be communicated subsequently. Similarly, before the possession was handed over on 14.10.1996 (page 62), the corresponding affidavit dated 29.08.1996 was obtained as per which it was again undertaken by the respondent that the further price as finally determined by the Authority shall be duly paid and that in the event of any objection thereto, the possession already obtained shall be handed back to the Authority. The ground number 6 and 7 raised before the State Commission categorically were based on the affidavit of the complainant dated 29.08.1996 and it was pleaded therein that as per the said affidavit the Authority is entitled to claim the part of the price and the allottee is obliged to pay the same failing which the only option for the allottee is to hand over the possession of the unit back to the Authority. The reply to the complaint before the District Forum also, inter alia, contended that the originally fixed price was only tentative, the upward revision in the final price was based on the final costing arrived at subsequently, the fixing of pricing of any goods or service is essentially a matter between the parties wherein the forum cannot interfere, and that the Authority was ready and willing to execute sale deed upon payment of balance amount of price of Rs. 1,18,843/- with interest by the respondent-complainant. The District Forum erred in not considering the fact that the price fixed at the time of allotment was merely tentative. The State Commission also further erred in not considering or rendering a finding on the specific ground based on the affidavit of the complainant dated 29.08.1996. The orders of the fora below are therefore erroneous. The learned counsel further relied on the decision in DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Behal (2002) 7 SCO 135, para 17 to contend that the final fixation of the tentative price of a unit, being a matter of consideration as agreed between the parties, cannot be and need not be interfered. Relying further on Chief Administrator, PUDA & Anr. Vs. Shabnam Virk (Mrs.) (2006) 4 SCC 74, para 15 it was contended that the Authority had full authority to finalize the tentatively agreed price for complying with which the affidavit was filed by the allottee. For urging the criticality of the affidavit executed by the allottee in such circumstances, reliance was also placed on a later decision of this Commission in Prabhat Goyal Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority 2017 SCC Online NCDRC 1424, para 10, which may be reproduced as under:

                          "10. In the case in hand, the contention of the Complainant is that he was well aware that the price of the house would be increased. In fact, as per his affidavit, he himself had stated that in the event of the possession being given by the authority, he shall deposit with the authority the price as determined by the authority in accordance with the terms of the authority and in case of any default shall return the possession of the said house to the authority. He also stated on oath that the authority shall have the right to take back the possession in case the payment is not paid and he would not make any protest."

4. It was further urged that in that case of Prabhat Goyal, more or less under the circumstances as obtaining under the present case, the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant and quashed the letter of the Authority demanding the incremental price. However, in the appeal filed by the Authority, the State Commission held that it is an established rule that the consumer fora cannot determine or interfere with the price of any property and accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. After taking note of the relevant affidavit filed by the allottee, and agreeing with the State Commission, this Commission declined to interfere with the State Commission's order and dismissed the revision petition filed by the original complainant. Following the said decision, the learned counsel urged to allow the revision petition and to validate the demand letter of the Authority demanding a sum of Rs.1,18,843/- with interest.

5. Per contra, Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, on behalf of the respondent-complainant submitted that there is no error in the orders of the fora below and further that this Commission would have no authority to interfere with the well-reasoned concurrent findings and orders of the fora below. While going so, the learned counsel has firstly pointed out that the reply of the Authority before the District Forum had not taken particular defence on the basis of the alleged affidavit dated 29.08.1996, which was also not placed on record by the petitioner. Apart from this, it was contended that though the price was indeed mentioned as "estimated cost" in the allotment letter, the revised differential price of Rs.25,300/- plus lease rent of Rs.5,210/- totalling to Rs.30,510/- as was communicated vide letter dated 25.09.1996 (page 54) was subsequently paid on 14.10.1996. Therefore, there could have been no occasion for further revision. Though the affidavit dated 29.08.1996 was not made the ground of defence by the Authority, even if the same is accepted for the sake of argument, such affidavit cannot be made a ground for multiple upward revisions of the price for such long a period as nearly five years. The learned counsel also relied on MRTP Commission order dated 28.10.2005 in the case of Shri Gena Lal Singh & Anr. Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. UTPE No. 165/1999, para 7 and 8 reproduced below, to contend that it has been held therein that re-enhancing the cost price after having earlier conveyed the final price of the unit is an unfair trade practice and such unjust and unfair demand letter for revised price is liable to be quashed:

                          FINDINGS:

                          7. In this case, the facts of the complainant being in possession of the flat since 30th October 1996 after having been paid the due amount is not in dispute. The possession to him was given by the respondents after the intimation to the complainant of the final cost of Rs. 5,63,400/- vide their letter dated 23rd September 1996. It has come out from the documents filed by the respondents that the complainant had executed an affidavit on 30th August 1996 undertaking to pay the final cost as determined by the respondent authority. Thereafter, the final cost of Rs. 5,63,400/- was intimated by the respondent vide their letter dated 23rd September 1996 i.e. after the affidavit was sworn by the complainant. It is only after almost one and a half years that this final cost was revised to Rs. 6,99,756/- vide their letter dated 1 July 1998 for which no details or reasons for revising the cost have been given. During the course of the enquiry, no evidence has been led by the respondents to explain the difference in the final cost intimated In 1998 as to whether it was on account of certain grounds beyond the control of the respondents. The significant fact is, however, that the affidavit given by the complainant which was sworn on 30th August 1996 was prior to the Issue of the letter dated 23rd September 1996 wherein the final cost was Indicated based on which the payment was made by the complainant and the possession was offered to him and fully taken over by him. The arguments of the respondents, therefore, that on account of this affidavit, they are entitled to revise the final cost any time and ask the complainant to pay is not acceptable. Further, the respondents have maintained that the letter dated 23rd September 1996 was a wrong calculation and the blame has been put on the clerk.

                          As stated earlier, no specific reasons or details have been either brought in the letter Issued on 1st July 1998 or during the course of this enquiry about the increase in the cost for factors beyond the control of the authority. It is also noted that no reply was given by the respondents to various representations of the complainant explaining the reasons which resulted into determination of higher final cost and the plea of this being a clerical mistake has been raised for which again no adequate evidence has been led during the enquiry to justify the reasons for enhancing the final cost, which could be beyond the control of the respondents. Therefore, it is held that there no justification in the circumstances in this case for the respondents issue a letter dated 1st July 1998 increasing the final cost and asking the complainant to pay that enhanced cost particularly when earlier communication In September 1996 conveying the final cost was acted upon by both the parties. This tantamounts to an unfair trade practices also taking into account the fact that the representations made by the complainant were not responded to by them.

                          8. In the circumstances, while holding that the respondents indulged in unfair trade practices in this case, they are directed not to give effect to the letter dated 1st July 1998 in which the final cost was revised upwards and issue 'No Due Certificate' to the complainant as requested on that basis after verifying the payments already made by him. There will be no order as to costs."

6. In light of the above, Mr. Madhurendra Kumar submitted that no interference is called for.

7. Having carefully heard the learned counsels and having gone through the relevant documents and the decisions cited at the bar, to begin with, we have no hesitation in observing that though the specific defence on the basis of the affidavit executed by the respondent-complainant dated 29.08.1996 was indeed not raised by the petitioner-Authority before the District Forum, a specific ground was nevertheless raised before the State Commission, and therefore, the State Commission was required to dispose of such ground before dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner-Authority. Not having done so is an error which goes to the root of the matter. If we peruse the said affidavit which was placed on record before the State Commission, it becomes crystal clear that the respondent allottee in the affidavit undertook, as rightly submitted by Mr. Sengar, to pay the differential price and in case of any objection to such payment of enhanced price, to hand over the possession of the unit back to the Authority. There is some merit, however, also in the contention raised by Mr. Madhurendra Kumar to the effect that such an affidavit of the allottee cannot and does not grant an authority in perpetuity to the GDA to keep on revising the price and to keep on raising demands.

8. In our opinion, the affidavit of the complainant wherein alternative commitments are made by the respondent complainant with regard to paying the further final price or handing back the possession, the allotment letter wherein the price of the unit is stated to be provisional or tentative, the nature of the transaction and the status and affairs of the petitioner GDA are fundamental documents and considerations for resolving the controversy. Here is a Development Authority, a State organ, which has handed over the possession of the unit after realising not full but only a part of the likely final price. The balance price was to be finalised and received in future primarily on the strength of the affidavit of the allottee and the fact that the final conveyance was to be executed on such realisation of balance price. There is no outer time-limit prescribed or agreed between the parties during which the balance price can be demanded or recovered by the Authority. When such "second" demand of the balance incremental price was made, the complainant-respondent fundamentally objected on the strength of the earlier demand-notice dated 25.09.1996 (pg.54) to contend that the price of the unit was made final before granting the possession, and differential amount as then (in 1996) demanded was duly paid by the complainant, and therefore, subsequent second additional demand of further incremental amount raised (pg.64) after nearly 5 years is illegal. The affidavit of the complainant was not only not relied upon in the defence, the affidavit, as contended, cannot also generate perpetual rights and obligations between the parties so as to support the illegal demand of incremental amount once the tentative price was categorically finalised and crystallised by the Authority and so communicated as early as on 25.09.1996. There is, however, no averment in the complaint as to why the registry was not obtained for such long period of 5 years if at all the complainant was, as per himself, entitled for the same after having paid the "final price" as early as in 1996, and also further, as to why no grievance was made in that behalf earlier to the fresh final demand. To us, such absence of any grievance is indicative of the complainant's knowledge about further obligation to pay further demand. On the other hand, it was clarified and submitted on the strength of GDA report filed as additional documents by way of IA/9043/2022, that the communication dated 25.09.1996 was only for those allottees who booked or paid the amounts V before 01.01.1996 and was erroneously sent to the respondent as he was not eligible for that final price of the Unit having been allotted the unit after 01.01.1996. The said report is extracted as under:

REPORT: It is to inform that MIG House No. 102A, Gyan Khand-4, Indirapuram was allotted by the Authority in favor of Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinh and Mrs. Sunita Singh, whose estimated cost was Rs. 3,96,006/- and final costing was Rs. 421300/- which was informed to the allottee on 25 September 1996. The final costing was applicable only till 30 December 1995. But since the house was allotted on 15 June 1996, therefore the valuation of 43 MIG Triple Story Houses (allotted after 1/1/1996) of Indirapuram Yojna Gyan Khand-4 was proposed to be fixed at Rs.5,32,521/- while adding interest on the sale price in the original scheme, which was approved by the then Vice-Chairman on 20.01.2003, which is annexed at NS-3 on the original file of Indirapuram Yojana (Gyan Khand 4 / 52B). A copy of the relevant note sheet is attached. In the above circumstances, the demand letter has been issued only after the policy decision taken by the Authority. Accordingly, the difference amount was also demanded from other MIG houses of Gyan Khand-4 allotted at that time. Therefore, in the above circumstances, please inform the Hon'ble Commission and file a supplementary affidavit accordingly.

9. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the respondent-complainant did not get the registry of the unit done for five years till the fresh and valid demand letter in pursuance to the policy decision of GDA was made, as is clear from the first fresh demand letter dated 04.01.200

10. Having surveyed the entire records, we are of the opinion that though the fora below have rightly noted the two letters of GDA of 1996 and 2003 intimating the "final cost", and the inherent inconsistency or contradiction therein, it still fell in error in not taking note of the paramount fact that the payment of final demand on the basis of finalisation of the tentative price of the Unit, as agreed between the parties, and as acknowledged in the affidavit submitted to the GDA by the complainant, was an agreed pre-requisite before the final transfer registry of the Unit in favour of the complainant can take place. The State Commission is right in reasoning that the affidavit cannot create perpetual rights of raising endless demands in favour of GDA. However, what we in fact find is that if the bona fide error by GDA in wrongly sending the letter dated 25.09.96 to the complainant is recognised as an error, which we believe need to be so recognised, the only and the first final valid demand raised is that made on 04.01.200  Also, while the inconsistent and contradictory communications of 1996 and 2003 is indeed a negligent act and conduct of the OP and hence rightly recognised by the State Commission as a deficiency in service, such finding of deficiency cannot still transform the erroneous communication of 1985 into a valid communication of final price, or render the actual final demand of 04.01.2003 invalid or illegal as has been held by the State Commission. More so, when (a) The price of the unit is necessarily a matter between the parties which cannot be adjudicated or interfered with by the fora particularly when the complainant's affidavit also recognises and affirms this fact (b) if unhappy with the finally determined price, the complainant has option to opt out and (c) There is no allegation or element of arbitrariness, victimisation or lack of bona tides in the appellant's conduct or decision and (d) even the complainant had not obtained the registration till 04.01.2003 when final demand was raised by the GDA.

11. So, in conclusion, we concur with the fora below and conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. However, we differ as to in which particular action of the OP the deficiency lies. The deficiency, in our opinion, lies in sending negligently and erroneously the demand letter dated 25.09.1996, and not in sending the final demand letter dated 04.01.2003 in terms of the complainant's affidavit after finalising the price which essentially was and always remained a policy prerogative of appellant as duly agreed between the parties. The case is covered by the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellant. The revision petition should therefore succeed though only partly. Consequently, the orders of the fora below are required to be modified to the extent that the quashing of the demand letter dated 04.01.2003 is set aside and the demand is held valid. As compensation for the negligent and misleading letter of 25.09.1996, the complaint shall have the benefit, by way of compensation for the deficiency in service of the petitioner, of paying the reduced demand i.e. 90% of Rs.1,18,843/- i.e. Rs.1,06,959/- in terms of letter dated 31.05.2006, with a reduced simple interest of only 6% p.a. in place of stipulated 21%. Accordingly the operative orders of the fora below shall stand modified as under:

12. Revision is partly allowed. The petitioner GDA shall serve a fresh demand notice, within 60 days from today, to the complainant for Rs. 1,06,959/- adding only 6% simple interest from 31.05.2006 till today. The complainant shall have liberty to pay the amount within 6 months after receipt of the notice, in lump sum or in installments as convenient. Upon complete payment, the complainant shall request to the secretary of GDA in writing to complete the formality of registration after paying due charges, which shall duly be completed by the GDA within one month of such application. However, in the eventuality of failure of the complainant to comply with the terms of payment of dues under this order, the rate of interest for further delay beyond 6 months window on amounts remaining unpaid shall be as stipulated between the parties.