1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.409 OF 2010 Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority .... Applicant Vs. Pandurang V. Anturkar .... Respondent Shri G.W. Mattos for the Applicant. Shri P.J. Thorat for the Respondent. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 08, 2010 P.C: 1. This revision by MHADA is directed against an order passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on application Exhibit-37 in Regular Darkhast No. 188 of 2004. The decree which is sought to be executed by the respondent entitles the respondent to get a flat from the applicant at the old cost in Gokhale Nagar. In fact, it is the contention of the applicant that the cost which has been paid by all the other allottees is Rs.74,800/- which is the final price at the old rate and, therefore, the decree holder is obliged to pay this price. He submits that the 2 decree holder cannot claim that he should be allotted flat for the price of Rs.49,500/- which was only a tentative price mentioned in the advertisement. In the execution proceedings, the applicant had filed an affidavit dated 29-10-2009 whereby the applicant had claimed that the price which was finalised was Rs.63,000/-. The applicant had the audacity to claim that the decree holder should further pay a sum of Rs.3,60,610/- along with interest at 18% per annum because of the delay on the part of the decree holder, forgetting that they were the judgment debtors who were supposed to provide a flat to the decree holder at the old price. This affidavit was rejected by the order on Exhibit-17, passed on 17-12-2009. 2. Now the applicant seems to be again up to same mischief, increasing the price to Rs. 74,800/-. The judgment debtor had claimed in the reply to Exhibit-37 that the revised price finalised was Rs.63,000/- and yet went on to issue a notice on 6-4-2010 to the decree holder calling upon him to pay the final price of Rs. 74,800/- and delayed payment charges, etc., amounting to Rs.4,37,430/-. This is not the manner in which the public authorities and 3 public corporations should be responding to decrees of Civil Courts. All that the decree holder wanted was an allotment of a flat at the price which was advertised. That has been granted by the decree. Therefore, he was entitled to that flat at the agreed price. May be that the price mentioned in the advertisement was a tentative price, but then it cannot be increased at the will of the applicant repeatedly. The very fact that price was earlier stated to have been finalised at Rs.63,000/-, and now it is stated to be Rs. 74,800/-, shows that all is not well with MHADA. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for an interference. Upon the decree holder depositing a sum of Rs.49,500/-, which was the agreed price, plus ground rent for 30 years of Rs.15,305/- and N.A. assessment of Rs. 1,050/-, he is to be allotted the flat and also placed in possession thereof. Since the applicant had approached this Court and the matter was pending, the time given by the learned trial Judge i.e., two months from 25-5-2010, is extended to 31-7-2010. The revision application is rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder states that his client 4 would comply with the requirement of furnishing family photos and affidavits as per Regulation 17 of the Estate Management Regulations before taking possession of the flat. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)