ORDER O.P. No. 586 of 1996 is filed to direct the Arbitrator to file the award. O.P. No. 732 of 1997 is filed to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator. The arbitration arose out of disputes between Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (Hereinafter referred to as MMDA) who are the claimants in the arbitration O.P. and several respondents to whom ready built houses were allotted in Manali. There are several industries situate in Manali and the respondents are the workers in those industries. They had no houses and the houses were allotted to them by MMDA. Till they were provided with the houses, they were residing in Madras and were travelling by bus or through any other transport. The work was stopped when the Government of India framed a scheme for construction of houses to the workers working in the industries in that area. The Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Board was constituted under Section 5 of Chapter II of the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 and the MMDA was a part of it. MMDA had effected advertisements and invited applications for ready built houses under Hire Purchases Scheme. The details with regard to construction were given in the advertisement as follows : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Plinth Plot area Total cost Initial Balance to No. area of covered by of the house payment be paid in the house the house with plot to be made monthly in in sq.mt. instalments for 15 years ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Apprx) (Apprx) Rs. Rs. Rs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 18 74.0 10,000 1,000 80 2 28 92.0 15,000 1,500 120 3 32 139.0 18,000 2,000 145 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The houses were expected to be ready as early as 1978. Those who were interested were asked to apply with E.M.D. of Rs. 200. The applications also should reach the M.M.D.A. on or before 15.12.1976. The first respondent has applied for such allotment by forwarding applications. M.M.D.A. has intimated that he has been provisionally selected for allotment of ready built house scheme type III in Manali Housing Scheme and requested him to pay the initial payment of Rs. 2,000 within 15 days. 200. The applications also should reach the M.M.D.A. on or before 15.12.1976. The first respondent has applied for such allotment by forwarding applications. M.M.D.A. has intimated that he has been provisionally selected for allotment of ready built house scheme type III in Manali Housing Scheme and requested him to pay the initial payment of Rs. 2,000 within 15 days. Accordingly, he sent a demand draft to M.M.D.A. Thereafter, M.M.D.A. sent a letter acknowledging receipt of it and allotting house No. 20 in Block III to the first respondent with the endorsement stating that approximate total cost of the house including the tentative cost as about Rs. 18,000. The house was handed over to him on 6.6.1980. After a few days after 18.6.1982, respondent got a letter intimating the increase of price to Rs. 30,708. Like that letter, other respondents also received letters. The allottees filed writ petition in the High Court. M.M.D.A. filed counter. This Court by order dated 11.12.1985 referred them to Justice Sethuraman, a retired Judge of High Court. Same documents were filed before Justice Sethuraman. He died and in his place the present Arbitrator Justice K. S. Venkataraman was appointed. The Arbitrator framed several issues, considered the matter and after going through the oral evidence, passed the award. Besides initial cost of Rs. 18,000 the Arbitrator allowed an increase of Rs. 300 towards the cost of land, Rs. 1,250 towards cost of land development, Rs. 2,960 towards interest i.e., Rs. 4,510 rounded off to Rs. 4,500 i.e., revised cost is Rs. 22,510 rounded off to Rs. 22,500 and similar calculation was adopted for the other allottees. The Arbitrator made some calculation for other Type of houses. For 416 L.I.G. houses, Type I has a plinth area of 800 sq.ft. The advertised cost was Rs. 12,700. To this, the Arbitrator added Rs. 160 for the cost of acquisition of the land because the area allotted to him was only 800 sq.ft. Regarding filling up, since the area of the plot is 800 sq.ft. he allowed 800/2400 x 2000 roughly Rs. 670 and Rs. 1,370 towards interest. The total cost of the houses arrived by the Arbitrator is Rs. 14,900 for 416 LIG Type I houses. The Arbitrator has allowed the final cost in favour of the M.M.D.A. as follows : For 416 LIG Type IV : Advertised Cost Rs. 17,500 Increase in land cost Rs. 670 and Rs. 1,370 towards interest. The total cost of the houses arrived by the Arbitrator is Rs. 14,900 for 416 LIG Type I houses. The Arbitrator has allowed the final cost in favour of the M.M.D.A. as follows : For 416 LIG Type IV : Advertised Cost Rs. 17,500 Increase in land cost Rs. 200 Filling up area of 1000 sq.ft. 1000/2400 x 2000 - roughly Rs. 830 Rs. 830 Interest Rs. 1,920 -------------- Rs. 20,450 -------------- For 416 LIG Type V with a plot area of 1125 sq.ft. : Advertised Cost Rs. 18,000 Increases in land cost Rs. 225 Filling up the area of 1125 sq.ft. = 1125/2400 x 2000 say Rs. 950 Rs. 950 Interest Rs. 1,920 ------------- Rs. 21,095 ------------- rounded off as Rs. 21,100 For 548 LIG Type I with a plot area of 800 sq.ft. : Advertised cost Rs. 12,700 Increased in land cost Rs. 100 For filling up of 800 sq.ft. 800/2400 x 2000 say Rs. 667 Rs. 670 rounded off Interest Rs. 2,180 ------------- Rs. 15,710 ------------- For 542 LIG house Type II with a plot area of 1000 sq.ft. Advertised cost Rs. 15,000 Increase in land cost Rs. 200 Filling up area of 1000 sq.ft. = 1000/2400 x 2000 say 830 Rs. 830 Interest Rs. 3,100 ------------- Rs. 19,130 ------------- While arriving at the abovesaid conclusion, the Arbitrator found that there was no justification for changing the system and imposing additional burden on the allottees and the Arbitrator has also not taken into account the contention of the allottees that the houses built had cracks since with regard to that consumer forum has passed award in that aspect and the allottees were also free to approach the consumer forum again. The Arbitrator has also ordered that the tentative balance cost of the house inclusive of the tentative cost of the proportionate extent of land with interest at 7% per annum should be paid in monthly instalments within a period of 14 years at Rs. 9.38 per month for Rupees one thousand of the cost. The provisional monthly instalment works out to Rs. 150 and the tentative monthly maintenance charges is Rs. 20 (Rupees twenty only) totally Rs. 170 (Rupees one hundred and seventy only). Both the amounts are to be paid in advance on or before the 10th of each month from the month in which the house is handed over. The provisional monthly instalment works out to Rs. 150 and the tentative monthly maintenance charges is Rs. 20 (Rupees twenty only) totally Rs. 170 (Rupees one hundred and seventy only). Both the amounts are to be paid in advance on or before the 10th of each month from the month in which the house is handed over. The Arbitrator has allowed the extra cost of Rs. 4,500 and it will carry interest at 10% and it can be paid in the course of five years in monthly instalments in respect of all types of houses and has directed that the instalments have to be paid to M.M.D.A. directly and the M.M.D.A. cannot demand charge for the collection and it is also open to the allottees to pay the instalments even after. As against this award, O.P. No. 586 of 1996 is filed for directing the Arbitrator to file award. O.P. No. 732 of 1997 is filed for setting aside the award. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter, the petitioner in O.P. No. 732 of 1997 is described as the petitioner and the respondent in the same O.P. is described as the respondent. The petitioner contends that the Arbitrator had disallowed a substantial part of the revised cost of the house and had misconducted the proceedings. The petitioner further contends that the Arbitrator had adopted simple arithmetic approach to a complex cost analysis and valuation of immovable property which ended in miscarriage of justice and the Arbitrator was not right in disallowing the enhancement in cost of land and he has not taken into consideration the evidence of P.W. 2 and the Arbitrator has also not taken into consideration the total cost incurred in building the house and so, the award is liable to be set aside. The workers/respondents who were allotted houses have pleaded for dismissal of O.P. No. 732 of 1997. Point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Arbitrator is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. The M.M.D.A. invited applications for allotment of houses in Manali area industrial workers and the respondents who are the workers applied for ready built houses and they were allotted houses. Point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Arbitrator is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. The M.M.D.A. invited applications for allotment of houses in Manali area industrial workers and the respondents who are the workers applied for ready built houses and they were allotted houses. The tentative cost for the building was fixed at the time of initial allotment and final cost was arrived at a later stage and aggrieved at that rate, the respondents initiated proceedings by filing writ petition and for setting the disputes, the Arbitrator was appointed. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of M.M.D.A. viz. B. Rajagopalan and T. Giri Kumar and on the side of respondents, one witness was examined. On a scrutiny of oral evidence and the documents filed before the Arbitrator, he has arrived at the total cost as stated above. P.W. 2 has given evidence about the increase in cost before the Arbitrator under land and development cost, cost of construction and interest on the capital during the construction period. With regard to increase in the cost of acquisition, M.M.D.A. contends that the increase of cost was due to enhancement of compensation to the landowners under the land acquisition proceedings. M.M.D.A., contends that in the land acquisition proceedings, the cost of land was increased to Rs. 7,500 per acre which is nearly five times the originally accepted rate. The Arbitrator has stated in his order that the M.M.D.A. has not furnished documents showing the increase in cost of acquisition to Rs. 7,500. The Arbitrator found that the counsel for the respondents pointed out before him that the documents filed before Justice Sethuraman worked out only increase in cost from Rs. 100 to Rs. 300 per plot and as the M.M.D.A. has not filed any documents with regard to the increase in cost as stated by it. He accepts the documents filed before Justice Sethuraman which shows the increase to Rs. 300 per plot. Accordingly, he has found that the increase in cost to Rs. 300 per plot conceded by Anbumani will apply in respect of cost of acquisition. The M.M.D.A. has based its claim with regard to cost of land only upon the land acquisition proceedings which had every opportunity to produce the orders passed in the land acquisition proceedings. The M.M.D.A. has not chosen to do so. 300 per plot conceded by Anbumani will apply in respect of cost of acquisition. The M.M.D.A. has based its claim with regard to cost of land only upon the land acquisition proceedings which had every opportunity to produce the orders passed in the land acquisition proceedings. The M.M.D.A. has not chosen to do so. So, the Arbitrator had no other option but to accept the documents filed before Justice Sethuraman in that aspect to arrive at the conclusion. No document has been filed before the Arbitrator with regard to increase in cost as contended by M.M.D.A. So, on the materials produced before the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator has arrived at the increase in cost of land at Rs. 300 per plot. It cannot be stated that the Arbitrator acted arbitrarily and misconducted the proceedings. In Trustees, Port of Madras vs. Engineering Constructions Corporation Ltd. ( AIR 1995 SC 2423 = 1995 (2) Arb. LR 332 (SC)), it has been held that : "The Court cannot reappraise the evidence, materials before umpire and come to a different finding of fact." Applying the principles laid down in the above decision, I find that this aspect cannot be re-examined by this Court now. Apparently, there is no error on the face of the award passed by the Arbitrator in arriving at the cost of land. Only on the materials placed before the Arbitrator, and after analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Arbitrator has arrived at such a conclusion. There is no misconduct of proceedings and there is no error apparent on the face of the award. So, the cost of land arrived by the Arbitrator is perfectly justified. With regard to land development cost, M.M.D.A. has sought for increase of cost. M.M.D.A. contends that for developing plots, certain expenditure had to be incurred like land acquisition costs, providing roads, culverts, street lights, sewerage, etc. The development, cost has to be levied and so, the development cost as demanded by the M.M.D.A. is perfectly justified. The Arbitrator has found that no documents have been filed in support of this claim and it is the duty of the M.M.D.A. to justify the increase by production of necessary documents. From the evidence, he found that there is justification for increasing the development cost to some extent that is due cost of filling up of the plot. The Arbitrator has found that no documents have been filed in support of this claim and it is the duty of the M.M.D.A. to justify the increase by production of necessary documents. From the evidence, he found that there is justification for increasing the development cost to some extent that is due cost of filling up of the plot. He relies upon document No. 13 which says that : "(i) City of Madras experienced unprecedented floods in 1976-77. This had a bearing on the decision of the Authority to raise the formation level. The Association has also been raising the issue of filling up the plots from time to time. Keeping in view the economy of scale and the need to have no compromise on vital issues like hygiene and safety, the Authority decided to fill up the plots before allotment. This resulted in the increase in the cost of plots". The Arbitrator has found that document No. 13 mentions only a figure of Rs. 50 lakhs for filling for formation or roads, but no figure is mentioned for filling up the plots themselves. The Arbitrator, on a perusal of the documents, found that the figure mentioned document No. 13 is inconformity with the initial cost and it does not include the cost of filling up of the plot and accordingly including the cost of filling up of the plot the Arbitrator arrived at the conclusion at Rs. 1,250 for 1,500 sq.ft. He has categorically stated that the area of the plot allotted is 1,500 sq.ft. and the proportionate cost for filling up is Rs. 1,250 and he is allowing this sum of Rs. 1,250 in addition to the sum of Rs. 300 i.e., Rs. 1,550. The next item of the claim in Annexure D is a claim of Rs. 19,500 towards raised construction cost. P.W. 3's evidence is that the work of construction was entrusted to Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board furnished revised estimate for the houses in 1980. The construction cost was revised for each type of houses and the same is furnished in Annexure D page 29 of document 13. 19,500 towards raised construction cost. P.W. 3's evidence is that the work of construction was entrusted to Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board furnished revised estimate for the houses in 1980. The construction cost was revised for each type of houses and the same is furnished in Annexure D page 29 of document 13. The Arbitrator has found that documents received from Tamil Nadu Housing Board for revised construction have not been filed and in the absence of such documents, he cannot rule out the possibility of documents having been received from Housing Board even before 30.6.1980 when the houses were allotted to the respondents mentioning the price as Rs. 18,000. In the absence of such evidence, the Arbitrator was not prepared to accept the figure as Rs. 19,500 as revised cost of construction regarding the house allotted to R.W. 1. On a perusal of the award. It is seen that the document from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board with regard to revised cost of construction was not filed. So, the Arbitrator was not in a position to accept with regard to revised cost of construction. The award passed by the Arbitrator in this aspect does not suffer from any infirmity. With regard to claim of interest, the Arbitrator has found that the evidence of P.W. 2 shows that the interest was actually paid to the Government Agencies and Government of Tamil Nadu and Housing Urban Development Corporation. Document No. 13 shows that there was some delay, in the release of funds by HUDCO, but the interest has been paid. The Arbitrator has found that since interest has been paid, he is prepared to allow this sum of Rs. 2,960 mentioned as the interest in Annexure D regarding the house allotted to R.W. 1. Regarding Collector charges of Rs. 1,748 in respect of house allotted to R.W. 1 the evidence of P.W. 1 is that the allottees were paying monthly instalments in an extension counter of the Indian Overseas Bank but, P.W. 3 says that the services of Indian Overseas Bank were not satisfactory and therefore M.M.D.A. decided to collect monthly instalment themselves. The Arbitrator on analysis has found, that he was not satisfied that there was any justification for changing the system and imposing additional burden on the allottees and disallowed the expenditure of collection charges. The Arbitrator on analysis has found, that he was not satisfied that there was any justification for changing the system and imposing additional burden on the allottees and disallowed the expenditure of collection charges. The Arbitrator has also considered with regard to payment of instalments and has passed the award. On a perusal of the award passed by the Arbitrator, I find that there is no error apparent on the face of it. It is a well reasoned award. Nothing transpires from the records that the Arbitrator misconducted the proceedings. The Arbitrator has taken evidence and after analysis of the evidence passed the award basing on the materials produced before him. This Court cannot re-appreciate and reexamine the evidence placed before the Arbitrator and come to a different finding of fact. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the award does not suffer from any infirmity and there is also no error of legal principles. The award passed by the Arbitrator is sustained. In the result, O.P. No. 732 of 1997 is dismissed O.P. No. 586 of 1996 is ordered. O.P. No. 732 of 1997 dismissed. O.P. No. 586 of 1996 allowed.