As per case facts, an appellant applied for an apartment, made significant payments, but faced delays in possession from the development authority. Despite offers of possession, the construction was found ... deficient, and the authority failed to provide necessary completion and firefighting certificates. The appellant also delayed a final payment, requesting a waiver of interest, leading to a complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The question arose whether the development authority's offer of possession was valid without the essential certificates, impacting the appellant's entitlement to interest from the date of deposit, given the mutual delays and allegations of non-compliance. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of the authority's arguments regarding limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction, acknowledging mutual delays from both sides. While the appellant was recognized for delaying a balance payment and seeking an interest waiver, the Court emphasized the authority's failure to provide crucial completion and firefighting certificates, which invalidated the possession offer. Consequently, the Court awarded additional compensation to the appellant beyond the initial refund and interest, instructed the return of stamp papers, and acknowledged the authority's public service role by not imposing exemplary costs, ensuring a balanced outcome for both parties involved in the dispute.