ORDER 1. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 16-4-1999 PASSED BY THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION (FOR SHORT "THE COMMISSION"), NEW DELHI. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE RESPONDENT HAD, ON 25-5-1989, APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT GDA FOR ALLOTMENT OF A FLAT IN THE GOVINDPURAM HOUSING SCHEME. IN TERMS OF THE RESERVATION LETTER DATED 8-11-1989 SHE HAD DEPOSITED 25% OF THE COST. THEREAFTER, SHE DEPOSITED THE OTHER THREE INSTALMENTS BETWEEN 6-12-1989 AND 30-12-1991. THUS, THE RESPONDENT HAS PAID THE ENTIRE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF THE FLAT I.E. A SUM OF RS 32,020. 3. AS NEITHER THE FLAT WAS ALLOTTED NOR THE MONEY REFUNDED, THE RESPONDENT FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COMMISSION. BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE APPELLANT GDA TOOK UP A DEFENCE THAT BY LETTER DATED 2-6-1994 THEY HAD ASKED ALL THE ALLOTTEES FOR WRITTEN CONSENT TO ACCEPT THE INCREASED PRICE OF RS 80,900 AS THEY WERE NOW OFFERING A LARGER FLAT WITH BETTER FACILITIES. THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT AS THE RESPONDENT HAD NEITHER REPLIED TO THE SAID LETTER NOR PAID THE INCREASED PRICE, SHE HAD NOT BEEN REFUNDED THE AMOUNT NOR GIVEN POSSESSION. 4. THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD RECEIVED THE LETTER DATED 2-6-1994. THE COMMISSION FURTHER HELD THAT AS ADMITTEDLY THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT CONSENTED TO PAY THE INCREASED PRICE, THE MONIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED. THE COMMISSION ALSO HELD THAT THERE WAS DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE IN NOT RETURNING THE AMOUNT. THE COMMISSION THEREFORE DIRECTED RETURN OF THE AMOUNT WITH INTEREST @ 18% P.A. CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF EACH DEPOSIT TILL THE DATE OF REFUND. 5. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLOTMENT WAS IN THE GOVINDPURAM HOUSING SCHEME. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A STAY GRANTED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 24-4-1991 TO 16-12-1993 AND THEREFORE, NO CONSTRUCTION COULD TAKE PLACE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THAT PERIOD NO INTEREST WAS PAYABLE. 6. IN SUPPORT OF THIS SUBMISSION, RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON PARA 25 OF A JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. BALBIR SINGH1. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS JUDGMENT IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THAT FOR THE PERIOD OF STAY, NO INTEREST IS PAYABLE. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS SUBMISSION. 6. IN SUPPORT OF THIS SUBMISSION, RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON PARA 25 OF A JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. BALBIR SINGH1. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS JUDGMENT IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THAT FOR THE PERIOD OF STAY, NO INTEREST IS PAYABLE. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS SUBMISSION. PARA 25 OF THE JUDGMENT ONLY DEALS WITH CASES WHERE POSSESSION OF PLOTS IS BEING DELIVERED AFTER A DELAYED PERIOD AND THE INTEREST AWARDED IS BY WAY OF COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AGONY AND/OR FOR ESCALATION IN THE COST. OF CONSTRUCTION. IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON RETURN OF MONEY, PARA 19 OF THAT JUDGMENT CATEGORICALLY SETS OUT THAT INTEREST WILL BE PAYABLE FROM THE DATE THE MONIES WERE DEPOSITED TILL THEY ARE RETURNED. 7. WE SEE NO SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NO DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE APPELLANTS CONTINUED TO ACCEPT THE INSTALMENTS EVEN AFTER THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT STAYED CONSTRUCTION. TO BE NOTED THAT THE LAST INSTALMENT WAS PAID AND RECEIVED ON 30-12-1991 I.E. AFTER THE STAY HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. IF, AS CLAIMED, THERE WAS A STAY AND THEY THUS COULD NOT CONSTRUCT AND DELIVER POSSESSION, THE APPELLANTS SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY WRITTEN TO ALL THE ALLOTTEES, FROM WHOM THEY HAD TAKEN THE MONIES INQUIRING WHETHER THEY WANTED THEIR MONIES TO BE RETURNED AS THE APPELLANTS WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO DELIVER POSSESSION FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPELLANTS HAVE NOT WRITTEN ANY SUCH LETTER NOR RETURNED THE MONIES. EVEN AFTER THE STAY WAS VACATED AND IN 1994 THEY WERE READY TO ALLOT, THEY SHOULD HAVE RETURNED MONIES OF ALLOTTEES WHO DID NOT CONSENT TO THE INCREASED PRICE. ADMITTEDLY THEY RECEIVED NO REPLY FROM THE RESPONDENT. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY DID NOT OFFER TO RETURN THE MONIES. THE APPELLANTS HAVE USED THE RESPONDENTS MONEY. IT IS THEREFORE FAIR THAT THE MONIES SHOULD BE RETURNED WITH INTEREST. THIS COURT HAS ALREADY HELD, IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED CASE THAT IN SUCH CASES INTEREST SHOULD BE @ 18% P.A. 8. WE, THEREFORE; SEE NO SUBSTANCE IN THIS APPEAL: THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 9. THE AMOUNT IS TO BE REFUNDED WITH INTEREST AT 18% P.A. WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS FROM TODAY. THIS COURT HAS ALREADY HELD, IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED CASE THAT IN SUCH CASES INTEREST SHOULD BE @ 18% P.A. 8. WE, THEREFORE; SEE NO SUBSTANCE IN THIS APPEAL: THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 9. THE AMOUNT IS TO BE REFUNDED WITH INTEREST AT 18% P.A. WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS FROM TODAY. IF THE AMOUNTS ARE NOT PAID WITHIN THE SAID PERIOD THE INTEREST WILL BE @ 24% P.A.