Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short tate Commission in First Appeal No. 103 / 2007 filed against the order dated 23.05.2006 passed by the District Forum, Tirunelveli in the complaint thereby directing the Opposite party / petitioner to execute the sale-deed of the plot of land in question without insisting for payment of amount of Rs.56,000/- demanded subsequently. The complainant having already paid the old cost of the land amounting to Rs.2,53,325/- in May, 1993. In appeal the State Commission upheld the said findings by giving additional reasons why the additional demand could not be raised by the Housing Board. Aggrieved by the said order, the Housing Board filed the present petition. 2. We have heard respondent in person but had not the advantage to hear the say of the petitioner, yet we have considered the grounds set-up in the memorandum of revision petition because the respondent has travelled from far place. 3. Respondent supports the orders passed by the fora below and submits that the additional demand made by the petitioner Housing Board was totally unjustified and therefore, it can be termed as arbitrary. He made categorical submission before this Commission that there was no question of escalation in the cost of the land because no original land owner filed any petition for enhancement of compensation already paid. Although in the statement (Annexure P-2) filed on record old and new costing of the land has been worked out but the basis for the new escalated price of the plot has not been explained. On the face of this position, we are of the view that in terms of the allotment, the petitioner Housing Board was not entitled to charge any additional amount from the complainant. The petitioner Housing Board had demanded additional demand for executing the conveyance deed of the plot in favour of the respondent / complainant, which is nothing but not only an act of deficiency in service but also amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice which is not expected from a State Housing Board. We find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and concurrent findings of the fora below which would justify our interference in this matter. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent by means of a demand draft within four weeks.