JUDGMENT MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.: 1.The petitioner is challenging a letter issued by the respondent No.1 dated 10/08/1999, thereby demanding an additional amount of Rs.68,226/- by way of interest on the price of the tenament which was alloted to the petitioner by the respondent No.1. 2. On December 24, 1999, this Court while admitting the above petition, had passed the following order. “Rule. Respondents waive service. The petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs.2,02,700/- towards the purchase price. There is serious dispute whether MHADA can charge interest right from 1993 when the allotment letter itself was issued in 1997. Under the circumstances, we grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) subject to depositing one third of the demand amount within eight weeks and paying the monthly outgoing as per the rules and regulations from the date of letter of allotment. 3. The petitioner was residing in an old residence located at 2 2/5, Jaihind Nagar, Khar (E), Mumbai. However, in the riot of December 1992 and January 1993, the aforesaid house of the petitioner was burnt. The petitioner lost everything in the said riot. The State of Maharashtra i.e. respondent No.2 herein, by way of a policy decision, announced a scheme with a view to rehabilitate the riot affected persons in Mumbai. The respondent No.2 reserved nearly 900 galas/flats/units for the riot affected persons. The respondent No.1 after verifying the eligibility of the petitioner, was given an allotment letter dated 06/03/1997 and it was held that he was eligible to get tenement/gala on aggregate payment of Rs.2,20,700/-. It is the case of the petitioner that he has paid the entire amount i.e. Rs.2,20,700/-, however he could not pay the amount within the stipulated period and therefore, the respondent No.1 by the impugned letter, demanded interest of Rs.68,226/- for the delayed payment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid the entire amount and now the petitioner has been given possession of the said tenement on 07/02/2000 and is residing in the said tenement since then. He submits that the petitioner has deposited 1/3 of the demand amount pursuant to the order of this Court on 24/12/1999. He submits that the demand of Rs.68,226/- for the delayed payment by the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory. He submits that considering all these aspects, demand of the remaining amount by the respondent No.1 may be set aside. He submits that the petitioner has deposited 1/3 of the demand amount pursuant to the order of this Court on 24/12/1999. He submits that the demand of Rs.68,226/- for the delayed payment by the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory. He submits that considering all these aspects, demand of the remaining amount by the respondent No.1 may be set aside. 4. The learned AGP for the respondents submits that the 1/3 demand amount which is deposited by the petitioner in this Court, be returned to the respondents along with interest accrued thereon. The learned AGP while opposing the petition contended that the respondents have power to demand rent as per the MHADA rules. 5. It is true that the petitioner is a riot affected person, his house was burnt in the riot, he lost his property and also some of the family members. He was held eligible to get the tenement under the Scheme and he has deposited entire amount of Rs.2,20,700/- and has taken possession of the tenement and has been residing therein since February 2000. He however, contended that though the respondent No.1 is entitled to charge interest on the amount which is not paid during the stipulated period by the allottee, this Court vide an order dated 24/12/1999 has granted interim relief and directed the petitioner to deposit 1/3 of the demand amount. Thus, an amount of Rs.22,000/-, which is the 1/3 amount, has been deposited by the petitioner in this Court. In our view, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, miserable plight of the petitioner and the fact that some portion of the demand amount as interest is paid by the petitioner, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the 1/3 amount of interest deposited by the petitioner is sufficient and demand of the rest of the interest amount deserves to be set aside. The respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the amount paid by the petitioner along with interest accrued thereon. The writ petition is partly made absolute to the above extent. 6. It is clarified that this order passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and should not treated as a precedent in any other case. Petition Partly allowed