1. THIS revision petition arises out of order of the State Commission dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint.
2. THE complainant in R.R No. 478/1999 was allotted flat No. H-76 in March, 1989 and possession of which was given in January, 1994.
The complainant in R.P. No. 482/1999 was allotted a flat No. H-110, under Govindpuram Scheme in April, 1989, possession of which was given in May, 1998 after nine years instead of after two years as per the terms of Brochure. First time the possession letter was issued in October, 1993. On complaints being filed by the complainants and after hearing the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaints and besides other reliefs, also directed the O.P./petitioner to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the deposited amount from 1st May, 1991. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the State Commission bunched all such cases and passed a single order enhancing the rate of interest for the period during which there was stay on construction granted by the Allahabad High Court. It is against this order that the revision petition was filed.
During the pendency of the petition, a compromise was reached between the parties and a compromise deed in each case signed by both the parties has been filed informing the Commission of the settlement of the case as per terms of the compromise. In R.P. No. 478/1999 while attaching a copy of the compromise deed signed by both the parties, the complainant yet seeks dismissal of this petition. In R.P. No. 482/ 1999 there is neither a representation nor material, contrary to the compromise deed placed on record. In R.P. No. 478/1999, compromise deed is not rebutted in any form. In fact a copy of this deed is attached by the complainant along with his written submissions. We are unable to appreciate the duplicity in this case. A compromise having been reached, issue settled, and having received the interest amount as per terms of settlement signed by the parties, it does not behave of the complainants now to go beyond the terms of settlement. We see no merits in the contention of the complainant. Both these case are disposed of in terms of compromise deed. No orders on costs. Revision Petition disposed of.
