ORDER : R.V. Raveendran, K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, JJ. The Ghaziabad Development Authority, the appellant herein ('the Authority', for short) launched a housing scheme at Sanjay Nagar. On the application of the respondent, the Authority issued a reservation letter on 30.6.1992. Allotment letter was issued on 5.11.1993 showing the final cost of the plot as Rs. 1,08,339/-. The respondent did not pay the lumpsum amount payable before delivery of possession and as on 24.4.1996, the total amount due was Rs. 33,716/- towards the plot, Rs. 13,000/- towards chowkidar charges and Rs. 18,713/- towards interest. As the payment was not made, the plot could not be delivered. 2. However, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum in the year 1998 and the District Forum directed the appellant to deliver possession of the plot within two months and to pay interest at 18% per annum on the amount deposited from 1.1.1993 till the date of possession, and also pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation with a further direction, on failure to comply, the Authority should pay interest at 21% per annum. The District Forum also stated that if any amount was due by the allottee, the Authority can adjust the same from the interest payable to the allottee. Even though, the appellant was aggrieved by the said order, in compliance of the said order it executed the sale deed in favour of the allottee on 29.5.1999 with a condition that the balance amount should be paid by the allottee. The possession of the flat was delivered on 16.7.1999. 3. The appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of by the State Commission by merely reducing the default interest rate from 21% to 18% per annum by order dated 5.3.2001. The revision filed by the appellant was disposed of by National Commission by a non-speaking order dated 24.3.2002 disposing of the petition in the light of its decision in Darsh Kumar upholding the interest rate at 18% per annum. Various contentions urged by the appellant were not considered by the National Commission. 4. In this case, the non delivery was on account of non payment of the amount to be deposited before delivery of possession. It is not in dispute that the possession of the flat has now been delivered and sale deed also been executed, even when dues had not been paid. 5. 4. In this case, the non delivery was on account of non payment of the amount to be deposited before delivery of possession. It is not in dispute that the possession of the flat has now been delivered and sale deed also been executed, even when dues had not been paid. 5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the respondent was not entitled to any interest or damages. [See Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711 and HUDA v. Raja Ram, (2009) 2 SCALE 164 . Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part and set aside the order of the District Forum, as affirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission and delete the award of interest and award of compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. If any amount is still outstanding from the respondent, it is open to the Authority to take such action as is available to them in accordance with law for recovery of the same.