Mr. R. C. Lahoti, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant. is a builder. On 21. 2. 1988, thedefendant entered into an agreement to sell a flat having an area of 88. 7 sft bearingnos. 9 and 10 on the first floor of a multi-storeyed commercial complex known asthapar CHAMBERS-111, at 2, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi. Theconsideration was fixed at Rs. 9,45,443. 49. The sale consideration has been paidto the defendant. The defendant delivered possession of the flat to the plaintiffbut it was found that the plinth area was only 519. 61 sft instead of 888. 7 sft as wasagreed. Adding at the rate of 20% the total area would come to 623. 53 sft. In viewof the shortage of the area, the plaintiff served a notice and then filed the presentsuit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell to the extent to which thearea has fallen short. ( 2 ) IT appears that though the suit was contested initially but during thecourse of hearing the scope of controversy narrowed down. On 9. 5. 89, the Courtappointed architect to take the measurements. The defendants were directed toretain ownership right in any of the flats on the first or any other floor of thebuilding to the extent of 265. 17 sft. so as to make the same available to the plaintiff. On 31. 7. 1991, the defendant informed the Court that an area of 265. 17 sft wasreserved for the plaintiff in the basement. On 14. 11. 1991, it was informed to thecourt that only area out of which the plaintiff could becompensated v/as availablein the basement and nowhere else. On 29. 5. 92, it was settled in the presence of theparties that the plaintiff would accept the area in the basement and the defendantwould also compensate the plaintiff for the loss. which he might have incurred ashe was not given space on the first floor or any floor other than the basement. Tofind out the difference in price a Local Commissioner was also appointed. ( 3 ) THE Commissioner has opined that the rates of the basement were lowerthan the rates of the first floor and difference was Rs. 600. 00 per sft. ; on the basis ofthe difference in rates, value for 265. 17 sft would come to Rs. 1,59,102. 00. Nowritten objections have been filed to the report of the Commissioner. ( 3 ) THE Commissioner has opined that the rates of the basement were lowerthan the rates of the first floor and difference was Rs. 600. 00 per sft. ; on the basis ofthe difference in rates, value for 265. 17 sft would come to Rs. 1,59,102. 00. Nowritten objections have been filed to the report of the Commissioner. Havingperused the report of the Commissioner, this Court is satisfied that there is noreason why the report of the Commissioner should not beaccepted. ( 4 ) FOR the foregoing reasons the suit is decreed in part. Before formulatingthe operative part of the judgment it may be placed on record that the learnedcounsel for the plaintiff has made a statement at the time of delivery of thisjudgment that the plaintiff would be satisfied if the defendant is directed by thedecree to deliver possession to the plaintiff 265. 17 sft area in the basement. In viewof that statement, it is directed that the defendant shall deliver possession of265. 17 area of the basement to the plaintiff and shall allow the plaintiff to remainin undisturbed peaceful possession thereof. At the time of delivery the area shallbe specified by drawing a sketch map thereof and by specifying the same in a planof the basement part of the plot. The plaintiff would also be entitled to recover anamount of Rs. 1,59,102. 00from the defendant. The costs in the suit incurred bythe plaintiff shall be borne by the defendant. ( 5 ) THE Commissioner Shri jagmohan Saberwal Advocate has been paid a feeof Rs. 5000. 00 in terms of the Court order dated 29. 5. 92. He has held about eightor nine hearings. He would be paid a further fee of Rs. 5000. 00 to be borne equallyby both the parties. If the defendant does not pay, the amount shall be paid by theplaintiff and recovered from the defendant as costs in the suit. Let a decree be drawn in terms of para 4 above.