Judgment :- In W.P.No.3583/1999: Petitioner-Institution seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the Respondents-Board to comply with the request made by the Petitioner in its representation dated 20.8.1998. In W.P.No.21892/2001: Petitioner-Institution seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent in letter No.R7/6316/2000 dated 010. 2001 and to direct the 2nd Respondent to convey the land covered by the allotment order issued by the 1st Respondent in allotment order No.R3/21151/88 dated 211. 1988. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petitions are as follows:- (i) At the request of Petitioner-Institution, school site at Krishnagiri Phase-II was allotted to Adhiamaan Educational Trust in letter No.R2/292/88, dated 210. 1988 for running a school. Total extent of land allotted to the Petitioner-Institution was 61 grounds and 109 sq.ft. Out of which 50% area allotted for play ground and 50% to pay cost. Regular allotment order was issued to the Petitioner-Institution on 211. 1988 by the Executive Engineer, Hosur Housing Unit for allotment of school site at Krishnagiri with the intimation to pay the initial deposit of Rs.2,46,839/-and monthly instalment of Rs.11,831/- per month for a period of 10 years w.e.f. November 1988. (ii) Though, actual extent of site 21-D is 61 grounds and 109 sq.ft., 50% of the same was allotted to the Petitioner. Allotment was made to the Petitioner at the tentative rate of Rs.28,600/- per ground. In the allotment order No.R3/21151/86 dated 211. 1988, there was a clear mention that the final cost will be intimated later and that the rate of Rs.28,600/- per ground is only a tentative rate. It was further mentioned in the allotment order that the balance payment should be made with 14% interest. (iii) Petitioner was directed to pay initial deposit of Rs.2,46,839/- and the monthly instalment of Rs.11,831/- per month for a period of 10 years w.e.f. November 1988. Petitioner-Institution has paid the following amount towards the cost of site in school site in Krishnagiri Phase-II:- Bill No. & Date Amount Rs. 7896/211. 88 1,000.00 48401/211. 88 1,78,844.45 43546/211. 88 79,825.50 3. School site at Krishnagiri was allotted to the Petitioner for running a Higher Secondary school. But the Petitioner-Institution is alleged to have violated the allotment conditions proposing to start College instead of school. Show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner-Instituion in Boards reference No.AS(co)3/89 dated 14. 1989. 7896/211. 88 1,000.00 48401/211. 88 1,78,844.45 43546/211. 88 79,825.50 3. School site at Krishnagiri was allotted to the Petitioner for running a Higher Secondary school. But the Petitioner-Institution is alleged to have violated the allotment conditions proposing to start College instead of school. Show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner-Instituion in Boards reference No.AS(co)3/89 dated 14. 1989. Allotment made to the Petitioner-Institution has been kept in abeyance, which has led to the filing of number of Writ Petitions by the Petitioner-Instutition. Since the point involved in these Writ Petitions lie in a narrow compass, the details of those Writ Petitions may not be of relevance. 4. As pointed out earlier, in the allotment order, allotment was made to the Petitioner-Institution at a tentative rate of Rs.28,600/-per ground. Cost of fixation and charging of interest rates are governed by Tamil Nadu Housing Boards Act and later the rate was fixed as Rs.34,200/-per ground. For 34 grounds and 1255 sq.ft. (nearly 50% of 61 grounds and 109 sq.ft.), by the impugned order dated 010. 2001, Petitioner-Institution was directed to pay Rs.29,33,541/-. The amount of Rs.29,33,541/- was arrived at as under:- Rate per ground Rs.34,200/- Rate for 34 grounds 1255 sq.ft. : Rs.11,80.684/- Amount already paid by the Petitioner :Rs. 2,58,670/- Balance :Rs. 9,22,014/-Interest from 12/1998 to 9/2001 at the rate of 14% on all rent which has fallen arrears : Rs.20,11,527/- Total :Rs.29,33,541/- 5. Challenging the impugned order Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner-Institution has contended that there is no justification for the increase in the amount to be paid by the Petitioner. Out Rs.11,80,684/-, the balance cost works out to Rs.9,22,014/- and the Respondents have no right in law to demand any sum apart from that amount. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Respondents Board was always in a hurry to cancel the allotment order and the delay was not due to the Petitioner-Institution and therefore, Petitioner-Institution is not liable to pay the interest. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is not right in contending that rate fixed per ground is higher. On the allotment order, Petitioner-Institution has entered into lease-cum-sale agreement on 21. 1988. Cost fixation and charging of interest rates are governed by Tamil Nadu Housing Boards Act, 1961. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is not right in contending that rate fixed per ground is higher. On the allotment order, Petitioner-Institution has entered into lease-cum-sale agreement on 21. 1988. Cost fixation and charging of interest rates are governed by Tamil Nadu Housing Boards Act, 1961. It is a matter of common knowledge that Housing Board undertakes development works utilizing loan availed from various other financial Institutions like Hudco Bank, HDFC etc. for which the Board is paying interest. Even in the allotment order, it was clearly mentioned that rate of Rs.28,600/- was only a tentative rate and that final cost will be fixed later. No exception could be taken for the rate fixed at Rs.34,200/-per ground. Therefore, the demand of interest is not arbitrary and illegal. 7. As per the allotment order 61 grounds and 109 sq.ft. has been allotted. Even in the allotment order, it has been stated that 50% of the area has to be treated as effective utility area and remaining 50% of the area to be treated as play ground. Clause-5 of the allotment order reads as follows:- "5. Out of the total extent of land allotted 50% area will be treated as effective utility area for constructing school, Laboratory, Library buildings etc., for which cost is chargeable and the remaining 50% of the area will be treated as play ground and is allotted free of cost." 8. Allotment order is subject to the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.622 Housing and Urban Development (HB.5(1) Department dated 29. 1994. Allotment order is subject to the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.622 Housing and Urban Development (HB.5(1) Department dated 29. 1994. Para-3 of the said G.O. reads as under:- "The Government after careful consideration, accept the proposals of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and issue the following guidelines for allotment of school sites:- .(I) A limited tender-cum-auction system may be resorted to and the upset price rate may be fixed at 1.75 times the ruling residential rate per ground in the year of allotment under each area, in Madras City and at 1.2 times the ruling residential rate in mofussil area, and the site be allotted to the highest bidder in the tender-cum-auction subject to the following conditions:- .(a) the School management should be a registered body; .(b) the School management should be non-profit making educational institution; .(c) the School management should be financially sound enough to raise the school building within the time stipulated; .(II) the successful bidder will have to pay only 50% of the site cost on the condition that 50% of the site extent allotted will be kept as open space for play ground and will be open to public. No compound wall shall be permitted to be raised in the 50% open space so that free access to public shall be available, if the entire school site is desired to be used by the allottee educational institution then, they should pay the cost for the entire site; (III) the educational institution should be started within a specific time and the land should be used for the purpose of education only and a time limit of 2 years is stipulated for commencing the construction work and the establishment of the school." (Emphasis added) 9. As per the G.O.Ms.No.622 Housing and Urban Development (HB.5(1) Department dated 29. 1994, Petitioner-Institution will have to pay 50% of the cost and the balance 50% of the site will be kept as open space for play ground and will be open to public. In terms of lease-cum-sale agreement and as per the above G.O., Petitioner-Institution is entitled to get sale deed for 50% of the extent allotted i.e. 34 grounds and 1255 sq. ft. (extent stated in the impugned order). 10. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that interest at the rate of 14% p.a. is payable only on Rs.9,22,014/-and not on the entire amount of Rs.29,33,541/-. ft. (extent stated in the impugned order). 10. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that interest at the rate of 14% p.a. is payable only on Rs.9,22,014/-and not on the entire amount of Rs.29,33,541/-. There is no force in the contention that levying of interest on Rs.29,33,541/- would amount to usurious interest. What is important is that interest mentioned at 14% in the lease agreement itself. When there is an agreement binding on the parties to payment of interest, the same shall have precedence. Interest at the rate of 14% p.a. is payable on all rent which has fallen in arrears and which remains unpaid. When the Petitioner has agreed upon the clauses of lease-cum-sale agreement which clearly mentions rate of interest at 14%, Petitioner cannot seek for reduction in the rate of interest. The amount for Rs.29,33,541/- is in terms of lease-cum-sale agreement and the same cannot be challenged. 11. In the result, W.P.No.21892/2001 is disposed with the following directions:- = Petitioner-Institution is directed to pay Rs.29,33,541/-with interest at 14% p.a. on Rs.29,33,541/- from 010. 2001 to till the date of payment. = The above amount is payable within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, failing which, it is open to the Respondent-Housing Board to cancel the allotment order and proceed with the matter as per the rules of Housing Board. = On deposit of the amount along with interest, Respondent-Housing Board shall execute necessary documents in respect of 34 grounds and 1255 sq.ft. as per the allotment. = As per Lease-cum-sale agreement and G.O.Ms.No.622 Housing and Urban Development (HB.5(1) Department dated 29. 1994, remaining 50% of the open space shall be kept as play ground and shall be open to public. 12. In view of the above directions, W.P.No.3583/1989 is disposed of.