As per case facts, the Petitioner (GLADA) advertised a residential plot scheme. The Respondent (complainant) acquired a plot by transfer and made substantial payments. Despite the allotment letter stipulating possession ... within 90 days, it was not delivered for over two years, leading the Respondent to seek a refund and compensation. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission partly allowed the complaint, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission largely upheld this, confirming deficiency in service. GLADA appealed to the High Court, contending that possession was 'deemed' to have been handed over as the Respondent did not take it within the stipulated period, thus arguing no deficiency. The question arose whether the concept of 'deemed possession' is applicable when the developer has not demonstrably completed development works or formally offered possession. Finally, the High Court ruled that 'deemed possession' is invoked only when the developer has completed all requisite works, ensured functional amenities, expressed readiness to hand over, and the buyer deliberately refuses. Since GLADA failed to provide evidence of such readiness, completed development, or formal offer of possession within the stipulated time, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower commission's orders and dismissed the Writ Petition.