Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Letter No. MDS/131199/79 dated 4-10-1990 and to quash the same and forbearing the respondents from collecting any extra amount of final costs not more than Rs. 9600/- for the house No. 12-B, Vyasaradi Weavers Colony, Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar, Madras 39. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter-affidavit rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition/petitions for want of merits. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also that of the learned counsel for the respondent/Board. 4. I have also gone through the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties during the course of their arguments. 5. In the above circumstances, the only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 6. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows: The petitioner herein has filed the writ petition for quashing the order of the 2nd respondent herein in collecting the extra amount of costs price of land and building and also to restrain the respondents from evicting him from the respective house. The Housing Board by Letter No. M2/013199/79 dated 4-9-1979 allotted D.No. 12-B, Twin House Type to the petitioner herein. It is specifically stated in the order of allotment at para-2 that the first total cost of the Housing including the first cost of the land is about Rs. 9600/- and he was asked to pay the balance amount at Rs. The Housing Board by Letter No. M2/013199/79 dated 4-9-1979 allotted D.No. 12-B, Twin House Type to the petitioner herein. It is specifically stated in the order of allotment at para-2 that the first total cost of the Housing including the first cost of the land is about Rs. 9600/- and he was asked to pay the balance amount at Rs. 68/- per month within a period of twenty years. The petitioner herein is very regular in the payment of instalments and he has paid the instalments till last month (as on the date of filing the writ) and in fact the instalment payable in the month of August, 1991 has been paid on 5-7-1991. While so, on 5-10-1990, the petitioner herein received a letter from the 2nd respondent by letter No. MDS/13199/79, that the final cost of the house works out to Rs. 18, 681/- and that the difference of the costs price has to be paid either in one lump sum within a month without interest or in 5 years monthly instalments with interest at 15% per annum at Rs. 226/- per month commencing from the month of October, 1990. The letter of the Housing Board is arbitrary and illegal. When the Board itself admitted that the firm cost price is Rs. 9600/- in the allotment order, it is illegal and arbitrary on the part of the board, to raise the cost price at Rupees 18, 691/- approximately double the original costs price. Further the house was constructed during 1977 and 1978 and the house was handed over and possession was delivered during 1979. The board authorities were aware of the cost of construction even on the date of allotment and hence they have mentioned as firm costs price during 1979. Further the delay of 15 years in arriving at the cost price is in ordinate and extraordinary. The petitioner herein should not be penalised for the delay and latches committed by the Housing Board. On 29-10-1990, through their association individual objection letters were handed over to the second respondent. They have explained in full their grievances and they have narrated what all happened during 1977. In spite of their objections and reply, they have received a letter on 8-1-1991 that the instalments as per the revised cost price has not been paid. Thereafter, they have given several representations and personal talks, but all in vain. They have explained in full their grievances and they have narrated what all happened during 1977. In spite of their objections and reply, they have received a letter on 8-1-1991 that the instalments as per the revised cost price has not been paid. Thereafter, they have given several representations and personal talks, but all in vain. Thereafter, on 20-8-1991 they received a letter dated 20-8-1991 threatening that they will be evicted as defaulters. The order dated 20-8-1991 is illegal and arbitrary. The 2nd respondent has no authority or legal sanction to issue such a notice to the petitioner. It is stated by him that when he is regular and has paid the instalments as per the original allotment order till date, the 2nd respondent has no right to issue the letter dated 20-8-1991. The 2nd respondent is taking action to evict the petitioner under the guise of the letter dated 20-8-1991. Since they are poor weavers and they are suffering very much even for the day-to-day food, they are not in a position to pay the amount as claimed by the respondents. Hence this writ petition. 7. The impugned order of the respondent is challenged by the petitioner herein on the grounds that the respondents have no right to revise the cost price since even in the allotment order, they have stated that the cost price is 'firm' and not tentative, that the inordinate delay of 15 years in revising the costs price is illegal and also that since the petitioner has paid the instalments at the rate of Rs. 69/- per month regularly, till date of writ petition the respondents have no right to evict him from the allotted house. 8. Per contra, it is contended by the respondents that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law and in facts since this matter relates to a contractual obligations between the parties herein. According to them the tentative cost of the house is fixed at Rs. 9, 600/- on a monthly instalment of Rs. 68/-. p.m. for 20 years. As per the approved estimate the tentative cost fixed and intimated. The final cost is fixed at Rs. 18, 680/-. After deducting the tentative cost (already intimated to the allottee) the allottee has to pay a sum of Rs. 9, 081/- towards difference in cost. The monthly instalment is fixed at Rs. 68/-. p.m. for 20 years. As per the approved estimate the tentative cost fixed and intimated. The final cost is fixed at Rs. 18, 680/-. After deducting the tentative cost (already intimated to the allottee) the allottee has to pay a sum of Rs. 9, 081/- towards difference in cost. The monthly instalment is fixed at Rs. 226/- p.m. at the rate of 15% for 5 years, the final cost is arrived as per original expenditure incurred and adding the land cost. It is their case that notices were issued to the allottee to pay the additional cost instalments arrears and finally eviction notices were issued for non payment of additional monthly instalments. It is also their case that in the RAO the cost of house were mentioned as Firm Cost due to oversight and that the cost mentioned in the RAO is only tentative cost. 9. Having seen the entire material available on record, the following are admitted facts; The petitioner is an allottee of EWS House No. 12-B, Weavers Colony, MKB Nagar, Madras City. Previously the cost of the house was fixed at Rs. 9, 600/- on a monthly instalment of Rs. 68/- p.m. for 20 years. That has been paid by the petitioner herein promptly. That being so, on 5-10-90, i.e. nearly after 11 years from the date of allotment of house, he received a letter from the 2nd respondent by letter No. MDS/13199/79 stating that the final cost of the house works out to is Rs. 18, 681/- and that the difference of the costs price has to be paid either in one lump sum within a month without interest or in 5 years monthly instalments with interest at 15% p.a. at Rupees 226/- per month commencing from the month of October, 1990. This action of the respondent is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the said letter of the Housing Board is arbitrary and illegal since when the Board itself admitted that the firm cost price is Rs. 9600/- in the allotment order, it is illegal and arbitrary on the part of the board to raise the cost price at Rupees 18, 691/- approximately double the original costs price. Per contra, it is the case of the respondents that it is not firm cost price, but it is only tentative cost but it has been mentioned as firm cost only due to oversight. Per contra, it is the case of the respondents that it is not firm cost price, but it is only tentative cost but it has been mentioned as firm cost only due to oversight. So, in this regard it is relevant to go through the regular Allotment order to verify whether it is mentioned as tentative or firm cost. Admittedly, in the RAO dated 4-7-79 it has been specifically mentioned only as 'firm cost' not in a single place, but totally in four places in that 2 pages order. It is significant to note that in all those four places the word 'firm' has been written above the word approximately in one place and above the word tentative in three places after scoring out the words approximately and tentative respectively (as found in page No. 1 of the Addl. typed set of papers). But it is simply stated by the respondents in the counter that while mentioning in the RAO, the cost of the house was mentioned ad FIRM Cost due to oversight and the cost mentioned in the RAO is only tentative cost. In view of the above facts, it is futile on the part of the respondents to contend that the cost mentioned in the RAO is only tentative cost. When it is specifically mentioned in more than one place that it is only firm cost (in four places), it is not known on what basis the respondents are contending that it is only tentative cost. If that is so, there is no need at all for them to score out the particular word 'tentative' and write the word 'firm' above the word tentative. There is no explanation forthcoming from the respondents. Therefore, the RAO clearly reads thus (Para 2) : "The firm total cost of the house including the firm cost of the land is about Rupees 9600/-". So from the above it is clear that the said Rs. 9600 includes the 'firm cost of the land'. That being so, even if there is a clause which is to the effect that 'The final price of the land due to the increased cost of development charges and provisions of amenities etc., are finalised, there is a bar on the respondent to claim such things as they have mentioned it as 'firm cost of the land' (para 2). That being so, even if there is a clause which is to the effect that 'The final price of the land due to the increased cost of development charges and provisions of amenities etc., are finalised, there is a bar on the respondent to claim such things as they have mentioned it as 'firm cost of the land' (para 2). That apart as they have clearly and specifically mentioned in para 2 of the RAO, that it is only firm total cost of the house including the firm cost of the land' there is no right at all for the respondents to finalise the cost afterwards. Apart from that even if it is taken as tentative cost as contended by the respondents, the respondents cannot take their own time for fixation of final cost and that should be made within a period of three years from the date of allotment as per clause 15 of the Lease-cum-sale agreement. Admittedly in this case, the land has been allotted to the petitioner herein by order dated 4-7-79. That being so the final cost of the house might have been arrived at at least in the year 1982, but in this case that has been not done by the respondents and after taking their own time and leisurely in the year 1990, they have worked out the final cost at Rs. 18, 681/-. That is against law and contrary to the contractual obligations between the parties herein. Further having clearly mentioned in the Regular Allotment order as firm total cost and including the firm cost of the land, now it is not open to the respondents to interpret that it has been mentioned as firm cost due to oversight. Above all in the said four places, the word 'firm' has been written clearly by hand over the printed words 'approximate and tentative'. That being so, it has to be taken that the word 'firm' has been written by hand only with a particular intention and not as oversight. Therefore, on this ground alone, the respondents have no right at all to revise the costs price since even in the allotment order (RAO) they have categorically and specifically mentioned not only the cost of the land but also the total cost of the house including the cost of the land as 'The Firm total cost the House including the firm cost of the land'. Further even if it is taken as tentative cost, they might have finalised the same within three years from the date of allotment. Whereas when it is more than 11 years in this case, on that ground also, the respondents have no case. 10. In support of their case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following two decisions :- 1. Meenakshi Apartments v. The T. N. H. B. Madras, (1993) 1 Mad LJ 161 and 2. Arunachalam v. The M. D., T.N.H.B., (1998) 1 Mad LJ 616. In the first case it has been held that the respondents are not entitled to fix the final cost beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the contract. That being so, in this case, even if it is taken as it is mentioned only as tentative cost, in the RAO, the respondents are not entitled to fix the final cost after 11 years. In the second case, it has been held that for such a fixation, the respondent cannot take its own time and that should be made within a period of three years from the date of allotment as per clause 15 of the agreement. Both these decisions support the case of the petitioner herein. Further in support of the case of the respondent, the decision reported in Raghunathan v. TNHB 1997 Writ LR 25 was relied on emphasising that the power to make a final determination as to cost of the plot has been retained. It is no doubt true that the respondent/Board has every power to enhance the cost taking into consideration the development charges etc., and fix the final cost of the property. But at the same time it is significant to note that for such a fixation the respondent cannot take its own time and that should be done within a period of three years from the date of allotment as per clause 15 of the agreement. That apart in this case, even in the RAO, as it has been stated as 'firm' cost, the respondents have lost such power of determination of final cost at a later stage. Therefore, for all these reasons the decision, relied on by the respondents is not of any help to them. 11. That apart in this case, even in the RAO, as it has been stated as 'firm' cost, the respondents have lost such power of determination of final cost at a later stage. Therefore, for all these reasons the decision, relied on by the respondents is not of any help to them. 11. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case. I am of the clear view that the petitioner herein has clearly proved that the respondents have no right at all to revise the costs price after having mentioned it as 'firm' even in the allotment order and also that the inordinate delay of a number of years in revising the costs price is illegal. Thus the writ petition succeeds and the same deserves to be allowed as prayed for. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently the impugned letter of the 2nd respondent in Letter No. MDS/13199/79 dated 4-10-90 is hereby quashed and the respondents are hereby restrained from collecting any extra amount of final costs not more than Rs. 9600/- for the House No. 12-B, Vyasamadi Weavers Colony, Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar, Madras WMP No. 18250/91 is dismissed. Order accordingly.