HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.12612 of 2001 Date: December 09, 2009 Between: Nisar Ahmed Khan, S/o. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Servant, R/o.H.No.176 MIGH, Bharathnagar Colony, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Vice-Chairman, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad, and two others. … Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring Lr.No.176/MIGEM9/EE (N) 2000, dated 21-07-2000, issued by the second respondent, Executive Engineer (Housing), A.P. Housing Board, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was allotted Flat No.176 in Bharatnagar Colony, Hyderabad, by the respondent-Board, pursuant to letter of allotment dated 17-01-1982. The tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.77,500/- and the petitioner paid 50 per cent of the cost initially, i.e. Rs.37,750/- and the balance 50 per cent was payable in 6 equal installments. As stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to allotment of the flat, he paid Rs.37,750/- by way of demand draft drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Hyderabad dated 16-02-1982 and further he paid Rs.30,000/- in the year 1985. It is stated that at first instance respondents issued letter dated 04-07-2000 stating the balance amount payable by the petitioner has worked out to Rs.4,947/-, but by letter dated 21-07-2000, demand of Rs.88,225/- was raised by the respondents towards the balance amount payable. It is that letter which the petitioner has questioned in this writ petition. The petitioner disputes the impugned demand on the ground that in view of the terms of the agreement and payments made by him, no amount is due from him. Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit are filed on behalf of the respondent-Board, wherein it is stated that pursuant to allotment of the flat in question on 17-01-1982, the petitioner entered into an agreement on 18-01-1982 subject to certain terms and conditions for payment of the balance amount. It is stated that on 11- 06-1982, the petitioner took possession of the flat. With regard to balance of 50 per cent tentative cost, which was payable by the petitioner, it is stated that up to the year 1985, an amount of Rs.52,604/- was payable by him along with interest and he has paid part of the amount, i.e. Rs.49,515/- as on 13-05-1985. It is stated that there was still balance amount of Rs.3,089/- payable by the petitioner, which he failed to pay from 14-05-1985. It is averred that as per the terms of the agreement, vide clause No.15, the balance amount attracts interest at 12.5 per cent; as such interest was charged on the balance tentative cost of Rs.3,089/-. It is further stated that the cost of the flat in question was subject to final cost and final cost was arrived at Rs.95,100/- and as possession was already given, the differential amount of Rs.17,600/-, i.e. final cost less tentative cost, is payable by the petitioner with interest, from the date of giving possession of the flat in question to him, i.e. from 11-06-1982. It is also the case of the respondents that the demand made is inclusive of balance tentative cost with interest at 12.5 per cent and also the differential amount, i.e. between the final cost and tentative cost along with interest; as such, the same is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that interest should not have been charged from 11-06-1982 on the final cost, but, however, it is to be seen that in the agreement itself it is made clear that after the final cost is determined, the same shall be deemed to have been become payable from the date of the agreement. Further, the respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that similarly placed allottees were charged interest from the date of giving possession of flats, i.e. from 11-06-1982 on the differential amount of Rs.17,600/-. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the respondents have received the amounts paid by the petitioner and after adjusting the said amounts, arrived at the demand made in the impugned letter. For the aforesaid reasons, no relief as sought can be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 9, 2009 MRR