JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1996 passed in "CWJC No. 1271/96 (R), whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge has dismissed the foresaid writ application. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent Housing Board by a deed of agreement dated 27.7.1984 and pursuant to that agreement he took possession of the plot in question on 25.8.1984. In the year 1987. a registered deed of agreement was executed. According to the petitioner-appellant he paid the amount of instalment regularly and last instalment was paid on 5.7.1993 in support of that, a chart showing payment of such instalments duly certified by the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, dated 6.7.1995 was filed in the writ application. Even after payment of all the instalments and issuance of a certificate to that effect by the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 4 has issued a letter dated 31.7.1995 placing a demand of Rs. 1,09,066.00. After issuance of that letter dated 31.7.1995, the petitioner appellant filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1271/96(R), which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. 3. During the course of hearing of this appeal, the Housing Boardrrespondent No. 3 was directed to file a counter-affidavit and was further directed to give details of the calculation and also justify the further claim of Rs. 1,09,066/-. Pursuant to that order, Housing Board has filed a counter-affidavit with details of calculation and at the same time, appellant-petitioner has also filed a reply to the counter-affidavit. 4. Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant, submitted that there is no justification for placing a demand of Rs. 1,09,066/- when all the instalments, as agreed by the parties, have been paid by the petitioner-appellant and a certificate to that effect has been issued and verified by the respondent No. 3. The payments made by the petitioner have duly been verified by the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, who is respondent No. 3. The last instalment was paid in July 1993 but Annexure-7 was issued in 1995 placing a demand of Rs. 1,09,066/-i.e., two years after full payment was made by the petitioner-appellant. The payments made by the petitioner have duly been verified by the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, who is respondent No. 3. The last instalment was paid in July 1993 but Annexure-7 was issued in 1995 placing a demand of Rs. 1,09,066/-i.e., two years after full payment was made by the petitioner-appellant. Learned Counsel further pointed out that from verification of chart submitted by the respondent No. 3 showing details of payment, if will appear that even compound interest has been charged by the respondents and the amount deposited by the petitioner has not been deducted. Learned Counsel further pointed out that purpose for creation of the Housing Board is to provide housing facilities at cheap rates to the needy per- sons at reasonable rates and to save them from the clutches of other institutions which charge higher rates of interest and indulge in other malpractices. But from the instant case, it appears that the respondents instead of fulfilling the aims of Housing Board are just harassing the persons who have been allotted flats. Learned Counsel further pointed out that from the letter of the Executive Engineer (Annexure-5) it will appear that flat was handed over without proper construction and without installing the windows and doors etc. Learned Counsel further pointed out that deficiencies pointed out in the flat were certified by the respondent No. 3 and he also wrote letters dated 14.11.1984 and 20.11.1964 but there is no such report that deficiencies were removed. Learned Counsel further pointed out that agreed amount was Rs. 84.000/- and odd and as against that agreed amount, the petitioner-appellant has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,06,055.31 but the respondents placed a demand of Rs. 1,09,000/- and odd, which appears to be mockery of the creation of the Housing Board because the tentative price of Rs. 84,000/- and odd may be Rs. 90,000/- or 95,000/-. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. 1. Sen Choudhary, learned Counsel for the Housing Board, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jharkhand State Housing Board, as it started functioning from 28.6.2001 after appointment of Managing Director of the Board and property in question at Ranchi came under the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand State Housing Board. On the other hand, Mrs. 1. Sen Choudhary, learned Counsel for the Housing Board, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jharkhand State Housing Board, as it started functioning from 28.6.2001 after appointment of Managing Director of the Board and property in question at Ranchi came under the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand State Housing Board. She has further submitted that calculation chart was called for from the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna and the chart has been attached with his counter affidavit based on the chart submitted by the Board. 6. From perusal of details of the chart attached with the counter-affidavit, it appears that the petitioner-appellant has already deposited Rs. 12,827.77 before February; 1984 and on 4.4.1984 he deposited a sum of Rs. 8,402.23 and thus before taking possession of the flat, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 21.230/-. It further appears that at the time of entering into agreement in 1984, although the price calculation by the Bihar Housing Board for the house and land came to Rs. 84,541.00 whereas instalment was fixed on a sum of Rs. 63,392/-. 7. From the perusal of details of chart attached with the counter affidavit, it appears that the petitioner-appellant had already deposited a sum of Rs. 12,827.77 before February, 1984 and on 4.4.1984 he deposited a sum of Rs. 8,402.23 and thus, before taking possession of that flat, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 21.230/-. It further appears that tentative price of the flat was Rs. 84,541/- and after deduction of Rs. 21,230/- the amount came to Rs. 63,392/-and, therefore, instalment of each month was fixed on a sum of Rs. 63,392/-. It appears from the chart that actual price after adding interest on the price of house and land from 1976 to 1984 came to Rs. 85,876.35 after deduction of Rs. 21,230/-which petitioner-appellant had already paid, but instalment was fixed on a sum of Rs. 63,392/- and, therefore, after deduction of Rs. 63,392/- from Rs. 85,876.35, being the actual price of the land and house, it conies to Rs. 22,484.35. The petitioner appellant has not paid any amount towards the sum of Rs. 22.484.35 as this amount was not added at the time of entering into the agreement with the petitioner appellant and communication of actual price was known to the petitioner appellant only after he applied for registration of his house. 22,484.35. The petitioner appellant has not paid any amount towards the sum of Rs. 22.484.35 as this amount was not added at the time of entering into the agreement with the petitioner appellant and communication of actual price was known to the petitioner appellant only after he applied for registration of his house. The Housing Board then sent an order of demand (Annexue-7), by which the actual price was communicated to the petitioner-applicant and, therefore, the petitioner is not bound to pay interest right from the date of allotment till the date of communication of the actual price and this will be the liability of the respondent Housing Board. Further the petitioner-appellant has not paid a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and odd towards unpaid instalment but he has. spent more than that over the installation of doors, windows etc.. and that amount of Rs. 9000/- and odd will be adjusted against the expenditure met by the petitioner- appellant. 8. After considering the facts stated above, the petitioner-appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 24,484.35 to the respondent-Housing Board and on payment, of that very amount the respondent-Housing Board will execute a deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner-appellant within two months from the date of payment of the aforesaid amount. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside but without any order as to costs. M.Y. Eqbal, J. 10. I agree.