ORDER : 1. Leave granted. Heard. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. ORDER 1. Leave granted. Heard. 2. HUDA, the first respondent herein, allotted a shop (B/Shop No.5, Sector 12, Faridabad) to the appellant at a cost of Rs.4,39,000/- on 29.3.1993. He paid 25% of the amount and obtained possession. The balance was payable in ten half yearly instalments with simple interest at 15% per annum. The appellant paid some instalments but committed default in regard to the remaining instalments. HUDA claims to have issued several demand notices in regard to overdue instalments. But as the payment was not made, HUDA, by notice dated 2.2.2001 issued under the provisions of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, resumed the shop. According to HUDA, as on 2.2.2001, the overdue amount from appellants, with interest was of the order of Rs.5,75,000/-. 3. The appellant filed a statutory appeal before the appellate authority. He offered to pay the entire principal due with simple interest but without any penalty. On the ground that the appellant was not ready to pay penalty/penal interest, the appeal was dismissed by the administrator as per order dated 28.3.2001. Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit on 21.4.2001 challenging the resumption. In the said suit, on 4.6.2001, an interim injunction was granted restraining the HUDA from dispossessing the appellant with an interim direction to issue a fresh demand by charging interest at 18% per annum on the delayed payments with a condition that if appellants did not pay the amount due within one month of receiving the fresh demand, HUDA will be entitled to take action in accordance with law. The appeal filed against the said interim order was disposed of by the appellate Court, by order dated 1.4.2002, affirming the interim order passed by the trial court, with one modification, that is, if the amount due was not paid within one month, HUDA would be entitled to demand penalty also. The revision petition filed by the appellant against the said order was disposed of by the High Court on 26.4.2002 with a direction to make a demand for the amount due with simple interest at 18% p.a. 4. Thereafter, the parties went on trial and the trial Court, by judgment dated 26.4.2006, decreed the suit, set aside the resumption notice dated 2.2.2001 and restrained HUDA from evicting the appellants. Thereafter, the parties went on trial and the trial Court, by judgment dated 26.4.2006, decreed the suit, set aside the resumption notice dated 2.2.2001 and restrained HUDA from evicting the appellants. It held that HUDA is entitled to claim simple interest only at 15% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, HUDA filed an appeal and the first appellate Court, by judgment dated 9.1.2007 allowed the appeal and held that the resumption order dated 2.2.2001 was valid. The second appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court was dismissed by the impugned order dated 6.9.2010 affirming the resumption order. 5. Several contentions were urged by the appellants in this appeal by special leave. The first contention is in identical facts and circumstances, in the case of large number of other defaulting allotees, HUDA had withdrawn the resumption orders and allowed the allotees to continue on payment of the balance amount with interest and some penalty. The appellants have secured the copies of all those orders under Right to Information Act and produced them. Another contention urged by the appellants was that before passing the order of resumption, no notice was served on them demanding the amount due. According to them, HUDA had sent the demand notices to the old address and not to the address at which they were carrying on business. 6. The fact that in a large number of similar cases, HUDA has revoked the orders of resumption, is not in dispute. However, according to HUDA, the facts of those cases were slightly different as the allotees in those cases had unconditionally agreed to pay all amounts demanded by HUDA including penalty, whereas the appellants were not agreeable to pay the penalty. Merely because the appellants raise a legal contention, their claim ought not to have been rejected. When others were given relief, they could have also been offered relief on the same terms. Though the resumption order was made in the year 2001, the appellants are continuing in possession of the shop for more than ten years by virtue of the interim orders. The appellants have expressed their readiness to pay all amounts that are claimed by the HUDA. They have also expressed their readiness and willingness to pay any penalty. 7. Though the resumption order was made in the year 2001, the appellants are continuing in possession of the shop for more than ten years by virtue of the interim orders. The appellants have expressed their readiness to pay all amounts that are claimed by the HUDA. They have also expressed their readiness and willingness to pay any penalty. 7. Learned counsel for the HUDA submitted that by virtue of the interim orders, the appellant has been continuing in possession from 2.2.2001 (the date of resumption) till date without any payment and the appellants should also pay damages for wrongful occupation. 8. In view of the relief granted by HUDA in similar cases, denial of relief to appellants would be unreasonable and discriminatory. We are of the view that interests of justice would be served if the appellants are directed to pay the entire balance with interest, penalty and damages for use and occupation from 2.2.2001 to date. 9. In view of the above, we allow this appeal on the following terms: (a) The appellants shall pay the entire balance amount due towards the allotment price with simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date upto date of payment; (b) The appellants shall pay a lump sum penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-; (c) The appellants shall pay damages for use and occupation of the shop between 2.2.2001 till today at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month. (d) The appellants shall deposit with HUDA, on account, a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- towards their dues, within 15 days. (e) HUDA shall serve a demand notice (by registered post and by personal service) by calculating the amount due as above, within one month and the appellant shall pay the balance amount within two months of receipt of such notice. On payment of the entire amount, the resumption order shall stand cancelled as in the case of the other allotees. (f) As this order is passed on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same shall not be treated as a precedent. No extension of time will be permitted and if the payment is not made as aforesaid, the resumption shall stand.