JUDGMENT K.C. Bhargava, President: The complainant has filed this complaint for possession of the house to be delivered by the opposite party, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, U.P. 2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant applied for allotment of a lower income group house after depositing a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with the opposite party on 1.5.1980. The photostat copy of registration certificate is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this complaint. Further a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was deposited in the year 1987 as additional registration fee and afresh registration certificate dated 7.11.1987 was issued, the photostate copy of which is Annexure-2. The cost of the house was indicated between Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- and the allottee has to pay the said amount in 180 monthly instalments of Rs. 145/- to Rs. 205/- per month. The allotee has to pay the interest at the rate of 6% to 10%. These houses were reserved for lower income group whose annual income is less than Rs. 7,200/-. The opposite party had not increased the price of the house till the deposit of additional registration fee. No information about the date of allotment was conveyed to the complainant. The complainant received an allotment order dated 28.12.1991 on 24.10.1992, the copy of which is Annexure-3. According to this letter, the complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,647/-. The last date of deposit was 30.10.1992. The complainant was not given a clear 30 days, time for depositing the said amount and there are many ambiguities in the said allotment letter. The cost of the house has been enhanced to Rs. 1,30,000/- from Rs. 18,000/ - to Rs. 22,000/-. The period of instalments has been reduced from 15 years to 12 years and the monthly instalment has now been fixed Rs. 1,579/- instead of Rs.205/- per month which was the maximum rate of instalment. The interest has been enhanced from 8-10% to 13.5%. The lease rent of 90 years was agreed to be recovered in the instalments but now it has been asked immediately. The said enhancement made in the prices and the interest as well as number of instalments is arbitrary and is not applicable to the complainant. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The lease rent of 90 years was agreed to be recovered in the instalments but now it has been asked immediately. The said enhancement made in the prices and the interest as well as number of instalments is arbitrary and is not applicable to the complainant. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service. It is prayed that the allotment of the deponent is still continued and the house allotted to the deponent should also be got delivered. 3. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the complainant is not a consumer. No notice was given by the complainant as provided under Section 88 of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act. The houses are given to the registered persons on allotment by means of lottery. No service was provided by the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad as this case relates to the immovable property, hence the State Commission has no jurisdiction over this matter. If the complainant wants the money back within a period of one year then no interest shall be payable on the amount deposited by the complainant. If the name of a person is not entered into the lottery then the interest shall be payable at the rate of 6% per annum if the amount is refunded after one year. 4. The house was allotted to the complainant by means of lottery. The registration number given by the complainant is wrong and he should prove the same. The allotment letter was issued on 28.12.1991 but it was posted on 21.1.1992 on account of paucity of staff. It is alleged that the date of deposit of amount of registration is admitted. The conditions given in the leaflet the prices can be increased or decreased and the final costing is done on the basis of inputs. The Parishad has denied to alter the conditions given in the brochure. The lease rent is being correctly charged for 90 years lump-sum. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant Mr. V P. Sharma, and Mr. S. C. Dhasmana for the opposite party. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant as a person of lower income group and initially he booked the house, the cost of which was written Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- but later on it has been increased. V P. Sharma, and Mr. S. C. Dhasmana for the opposite party. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant as a person of lower income group and initially he booked the house, the cost of which was written Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- but later on it has been increased. The complainant is not now in a position to pay the price of the house as demanded by the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. A perusal of the file will go to show that the cost of the house has been increased to Rs. 1,30,000/ - from 18,000/- to Rs. 22,000/-. The payment was to be made in 180 monthly instalments of Rs. 145/- to Rs. 205/- per month. Now this amount has been increased to Rs. 1,579/- per month meaning thereby the complainant will have to pay Rs. 1,579/- per month instead of Rs. 205/- per month. A person who is in the lower income group cannot be asked to pay Rs. 1,579/- per month. When the house was booked by him, the instalment was only Rs. 205/- per month which could have been easily spared by the complainant. In case of lower income group persons it is hardly possible for them to go in for a costly house. They want a house of the lower cost which is within their reach to purchase on monthly basis. Thus the increased cost of the house was beyond the expectations of the employee, therefore, he was perfectly justified in not depositing any further amount with the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that income certificate was demanded from the complainant which he did not submit. This income certificate is submitted at the time when the allotment is made. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the income of the complainant was more than what is fixed by the Housing Board, therefore, the income certificate should have been called before reservation of the house in favour of the complainant. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party has argued besides the registration amount no other amount has been deposited by the complainant till so far. As already mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, it was beyond the reach of the complainant to deposit the amount. According to the learned counsel, the price fixed initially was tentative. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party has argued besides the registration amount no other amount has been deposited by the complainant till so far. As already mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, it was beyond the reach of the complainant to deposit the amount. According to the learned counsel, the price fixed initially was tentative. May be the price fixed was tentative but the increase of the price to Rs. 1,30,000/- from Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 22,000/- was more than six times, therefore, under these circumstances the complainant can only be allowed the refund of the amount deposited by him with interest. The opposite party cannot be directed to allot the house to the complainant at the price initially indicated. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited with the Housing Board along with 18% interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The complaint is liable to be partly allowed. ORDER The complaint is allowed in part wit~ cost of Rs. 2,000/-. It is directed that the opposite party shall refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant be fore it together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposi1 till the date of payment. Compliance of this order be made within a period of two months. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.