Vijender Jain,j. ( 1 ) NOBODY has been appearing on behalf of the respondent-DDA in this matter inspite of the matterbeing on regular Board for the last so manyhearings. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. U. L. Watwani, has arguedthat the petitioner was allotted a flat initially on 15. 1. 84 in Category-11 on Groundfloor in Pocket-TV, Sector-B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi under the Self-Financingscheme. Subsequently, the respondent vide its letter dated 26. 12. 84 informed thepetitioner to deposit the second instalment by 31. 12. 84, third instalment by 30. 6. 85and fourth instalment was asked to be deposited by 31. 12. 85. All these instalmentswere deposited by the petitioner in time after taking due extensions from theauthority. ( 3 ) IT seems that as the flats were not constructed in the above-said area, therespondent wrote to the petitioner vide its letter dated 24. 12. 87, which is at page 48of the paper book, that the allotment of Category-11 Flat in the aforesaid Pocket couldnot be given and it was decided to allot petitioner a Category-11 Flat in Pocket-A,sector-B and C at Kishangarh. It was also indicated to the petitioner that estimated costof the flat now allocated to the petitioner would be Rs. 1,86,300. 00 instead of Rs. l,74,000. 00 as was communicated by the respondent vide its earlier letter dated15. 1. 84. Thereafter the petitioner was given the possession of the said flat on 14. 6. 88. Prior to that, petitioner received another demand letter from the respondent dated28. 12. 87 inter alia demanding a sum of Rs. 30,046. 50 paise after giving due creditfor the amount deposited by the petitioner towards previous allotment. In the saiddemand letter, which is at page 49 of the paper book, the respondent indicated thatthe due date for the first instalment was 10. 4. 83, second instalment on 10. 10. 83, thirdinstalment on 10. 4. 84 and fourth instalment was to be paid on or before 10. 10. 84. It had also been mentioned in the said letter that in relation to the interest as workedout and intimated to the petitioner, if any interest was to be payable by therespondent-DDA for delayed allotment, same would also be informed to thepetitioner. The petitioner deposited the amount so demanded by the respondent. After the deposit of the said amount, the petitioner received another demand for therespondent dated 25. 4. The petitioner deposited the amount so demanded by the respondent. After the deposit of the said amount, the petitioner received another demand for therespondent dated 25. 4. 88 whereby a sum of Rs. 29,888. 10 paise was demandedtowards interest for belated payment. The petitioner paid the said sum also andrepresented to the respondent that since they have charged the petitioner from10. 4. 83, which was due front the allottees of that scheme, though the petitioner wasallotted the flat only on 28. 12. 87 and taking that into consideration, respondentought to have givennterest at the rate of 10% to the petitioner after a lapse of twoand a half years as per the policy of respondent, which the respondent themselveshave admitted in their letter addressed to the petitioner dated 15. 11. 85 which isannexure- d to the petition. ( 4 ) MR. Watwani has further contended that respondent for the purposes ofequalising the petitioner had charged the interest from 10. 4. 83 although respondentwas not entitled to charge interest from the petitioner as the allotment of the flat waschanged by the respondent themselves pursuant to the letter dated 15. 1. 84 and if therespondent had charged the interest from the petitioner from 10. 4. 83, then thepetitioner was also entitled to be paid the interest from 10. 4. 83 for not giving the flatfor two and a half years. Inspite of various representations made by the petitioner,petitioner did not hear anything from the respondent in this regard. In support ofhis contention, Mr. Watwani has cited the case of R. Balmma v. Delhi Administration 6- Ors. , 40 (1990) DLT 409. ( 5 ) I have perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. In the counteraffidavit, no explanation has been given by the respondent as to why the petitionerhad not been given interest, which he was entitled for in accordance with the termsand policy of the respondent, but a vague stand has been taken by the respondentthat amount of interest was paid whenever permissible. ( 6 ) IN view of the fact that the petitioner has already got the possession and paidthe demand, no order qua the impugned demand letters can be made. ( 6 ) IN view of the fact that the petitioner has already got the possession and paidthe demand, no order qua the impugned demand letters can be made. However,keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends ofjustice, I allow this writ petition with the direction to the respondent to pay interestto the petitioner at the rate of 10% per annum from 10. 4. 83 till possession is grantedto the petitioner in terms of the policy of the respondent. The amount so calculatedbe paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. In case the respondent failedto make the payment within eight weeks, thereafter on the amount due, thepetitioner shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Rule is madeabsolute. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.