ORDER 1. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in CW No. 1493 of 1991 g wherein the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 and a direction has been issued to the Delhi Development Authority, the appellant herein, to allot a flat to Respondent 1 of area similar to the flat that was allotted to his father in a colony similar to Seikh Sarai where he was originally allotted without demanding any extra money. 2. The appellant floated Second Self-Financing Scheme for allotment of h flats under various categories. G. Balakrishna Rao, father of Respondent 1, got himself registered for allocation of SFS Category II flat on a deposit of Rs 10,000 towards registration charges on 9-1-1979. He was issued an allocation letter of a Category II flat under the Scheme on 21-5-1980 at Seileh Sarai. The estimated cost of the flat was Rs 76,000. The allottee was required to deposit the said amount in three equal instalments. G. Balfkrishna Rao being a Professor in the School of Planning and Architecture sbught permission of the Delhi Development Authority to mortgage the flat with his employer which was granted by the appellant. On 2-2-1981, the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi passed an order for the grant of mortgage permission and a tripartite agreement between G. Balakrishna Rao, Delhi Development Authority and Registrar, School of Planning and Architecture was executed for mortgage of the flat and the employer gave the assurance to make payment of the instalments of the flat. The agreement contained various clauses for payment of instalments for the flat, clause (6) of the agreement provided: "(6) If the borrower wants to withdraw from the Scheme or fails to pay the balance amount representing the difference between the house building advance sanctioned by the School and the actual cost of the flat, or quits the service of the School or dies, the amount of the house building advance will be refunded forthwith to the School. The amount of initial deposit of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) will be refunded to the borrower or his legal heirs, as the case may be, by the Authority after deducting such amount as may be payable by him as communicated in the brochure." 3. The amount of initial deposit of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) will be refunded to the borrower or his legal heirs, as the case may be, by the Authority after deducting such amount as may be payable by him as communicated in the brochure." 3. G. Balakrishna Rao paid through his employer four instalments. On 9-8-1983, the appellant issued a demand letter for payment of the fifth and final instalment of Rs 46,069.50. Before the payment could be made, unfortunately, G. Balakrishna Rao died on 15-8-1983. 4. G. Akash, Respondent 1 was a minor at the time of his fathers death. A letter was addressed at the instance of his natural guardian i.e. his divorced mother through an advocate informing the appellant about the death of G. Balakrishna Rao and seeking extension of time to deposit the amount due to the appellant. In turn the Delhi Development Authority asked her to report about the grant of succession certificate. As the natural guardian of Respondent 1 failed to produce the succession certificate for about 1-112 years, the allotment made was cancelled on 27-3-1985 and the amount deposited on behalf of G. Balakrishna Rao by his employer was refunded to the employer. It is pertinent to mention here that the natural guardian had already taken steps to get the succession certificate. Succession• certificate was granted on 30-1-1990 and immediately thereafter Respondent 1 through his natural guardian sent the same to the authorities for allotment of the flat. On 20-4-1990, the amount of Rs 45,069.50 was deposited by Respondent 1with the appellant voluntarily. On 4-2-1991, Respondent 1 further deposited a sum of Rs 53,000. 5. As the appellant failed to allot the flat, Respondent 1 filed Writ Petition No. 1493 of 1991 In the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the cancellation order dated 27-3-1985. The High a Court after recording detailed reasons allowed the petition and quashed the cancellation order dated 27-3-1985. The appellant was directed to allot a flat of area similar to the flat which was allotted to the father of Respondent 1 in a colony similar to Seikh Sarai without charging any extra money. 6. This case was heard initially on 18-8-2004. The appellant was directed to allot a flat of area similar to the flat which was allotted to the father of Respondent 1 in a colony similar to Seikh Sarai without charging any extra money. 6. This case was heard initially on 18-8-2004. After hearing counsel for the parties at length, we indicated to the counsel for the parties that we were not inclined f0 interfere with the well-reasoned order of the High Court which was just and equitable in the given circumstances of the case. The appellant once having asked Respondent 1 to produce the succession certificate could not cancel the allotment without waiting for the grant of succession certificate. Respondent 1 had taken immediate steps for the grant of succession certificate and soon after the grant of succession certificate, approached the authorities for allotment of the flat. There was no lapse on the part of Respondent 1. The delay in producing the succession certificate occurred for reasons beyond his control. 7. Counsel for the appellant was directed to supply a list of vacant flats of similar nature available for allotment and price thereof. Sl. No. Flat No. Pkt. No. Floor Cost of flat 1.185D&ESFRs 16,56,200 2. 221D&ETFRs 15,40,900 3.48DFFRs 15,94,700 4. 59F&GTFRs 13,50,700 5.147K&LSFRs 16,56,800 6. 199K&LSFRs 16,56,800 7. 28K&LTFRs 16,54,200 8. Counsel for Respondent 1, after taking instructions, stated that he was willing to take Flat No. 147 on the second floor, mentioned at Serial No.5 above, in Sarita Vihar. The costs of the flats had been worked out as on September 2004. Counsel for the appellant was again directed to work out f the cost of the flat as on 1983 when the original allotment was made in favour of the father of Respondent 1 in Seikh Sarai area. As the flats in Sarita Vihar area were constructed in the year 1990, the equivalent price as it existed in the year 1983 could not be worked out. Accordingly, counsel for the appellant has supplied the cost of Flat No. 147 (K&L), Sarita Vihar, on the basis of construction in the year 1990. This has been worked out on the 9 basis of the total covered area of the flat. The same comes to Rs 2,68,400. After adding interest @ 18% and 15% from 1-8-1990 till March 2005 i.e.Rs 7,33,963.00 and freehold charges to Rs 34,650.00, the total cost of the flat comes to Rs 10,37,013.00. 9. This has been worked out on the 9 basis of the total covered area of the flat. The same comes to Rs 2,68,400. After adding interest @ 18% and 15% from 1-8-1990 till March 2005 i.e.Rs 7,33,963.00 and freehold charges to Rs 34,650.00, the total cost of the flat comes to Rs 10,37,013.00. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to charge interest on the cost of construction. Respondent 1 cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his. If at all, the fault lay with the appellant in acting contrary to the assurance given to Respondent 1. We are, therefore, of the considered view that in the given circumstances of the case, Respondent 1 is only liable to pay a total sum of Rs 2,22,980 which has been worked out as under: (i) Cost of construction Rs 2,68,400.00 (ii) Freehold charges Rs 34,650.00 Rs 3,03,050.00 (-) Paid up to 4/90Rs 80,070.00 Rs 2,22,980.00 10. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant to issue a letter of allotment to Respondent 1 of Flat No. 147, Block K&L, Second Floor, Sarita Vihar within a period of eight weeks from today at the price determined by this Court, as above. Respondent 1 is also directed to pay the amount of Rs 2,22,980.00 within four weeks of the receipt of the letter of allotment. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. The appellant would be at liberty to dispose of the flats other than Flat No. 147 in accordance with law. This order is limited to the facts of the present case and shall not be taken as a precedent in any matter in future.