Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Tamil Nadu Housing Board against the impugned order dated 111. 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.34276 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge interfered with the demand notice issued by the appellants-TNHB dated 7. 2002 and only taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-K.O.Parasuraman had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the flat in question in spite of cancellation of allotment, the learned single Judge, on the ground of interest of justice and striking a balance between the rights of both the parties, directed the appellants-TNHB to work out the interest @ 24% on the arrears, from the date of default in paying the instalments and directed the respondent-writ petitioner to pay the same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to lease-cum-sale agreement, the respondent-writ petitioner was allotted M.I.G. Twin Type House No.1517 at Vellore Neighborhood Scheme, Phase II at Vellore in 1990 by the TNHB at a price of Rs.1,21,500/- (vide confirmation of order of allotment issued by the first appellant on 210. 1990 in Lr.No.VR-1/63/90); at the time of possession, the respondent-writ petitioner paid only a sum of Rs.9,822/-and subsequently, having found that the respondent was owning a farm house, which is prohibited for allotment as per Condition No.12 of the order of allotment, the allotment made to the respondent was cancelled. .3. In Writ Petition No.7836 of 1994, preferred by the respondent herein, the Court, by order dated 24. 2001, having found that Condition No.12 of the order of allotment having been relaxed, quashed the order of cancellation of allotment. Thereafter, pursuant to the Courts order dated 24. 2001 in the said Writ Petition, the TNHB issued proceedings (demand notice) dated 7. 2002 for Rs.4,99,428/-as the balance cost in respect of allotment of the house in question, which was challenged and interfered with by the learned single Judge in the impugned order dated 111. 2002 in W.P.No.34276 of 2002. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-TNHB submitted that through the demand notice dated 7. 2002, the TNHB calculated the balance cost of allotment to be paid by the respondent-writ petitioner and the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the said proceedings dated 7. 2002. 2002 in W.P.No.34276 of 2002. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-TNHB submitted that through the demand notice dated 7. 2002, the TNHB calculated the balance cost of allotment to be paid by the respondent-writ petitioner and the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the said proceedings dated 7. 2002. It is the further contention of the TNHB that they are liable to charge interest as per Clause 16 of the lease-cum-sale agreement, @ 15% per annum, as also the penal interest as per Clause 6, @ 18% for the belated payment. 5. The stand taken by the respondent-writ petitioner is that the demand for payment of Rs.4,99,428/- was arbitrary and unreasonable, which was the ground to interfere with the demand notice. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed their rival contentions. 7. With a view to give an opportunity to the respondent-writ petitioner, who defaulted to make payment, by order dated 18. 2008, we allowed the respondent-writ petitioner to deposit the demand amount of Rs.4,99,428/-together with 24% interest from the date of default in making payment, as was ordered by the learned single Judge. In spite of such time as was allowed by this Court by order dated 18. 2008, the amount has not yet been deposited, nor any prayer was made seeking some more time to deposit such amount. .8. It is not in dispute that the flat (house) in question has been allotted to the respondent-writ petitioner by the TNHB and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of lease-cum-sale agreement/order of allotment made on hire-purchase basis. If the respondent-occupant is liable to pay any amount with interest as per the lease-cum-sale agreement/order of allotment made on hire-purchase basis, including the penal interest for default in payment, the question of interference with such demand notice/proceedings dated 7. 2002 normally does not arise till it is shown that the occupant could not pay the amount because of default on the part of the TNHB. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent-writ petitioner failed to pay the amount because of any laches or action on the part of the TNHB. In such a situation, the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the demand notice dated 2.72002 as was made by the TNHB. 9. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent-writ petitioner failed to pay the amount because of any laches or action on the part of the TNHB. In such a situation, the learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the demand notice dated 2.72002 as was made by the TNHB. 9. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 111. 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.34276 of 2002, with liberty to the appellants-TNHB to issue a fresh demand notice in terms of lease-cum-sale agreement/order of allotment on hire-purchase basis, dated 210. 1990. In case of failure of payment, it will be open for the appellants-TNHB to proceed in accordance with law. 10. The Writ Appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations/direction. No costs. W.A.M.P. is closed.