bearing house No.I-2 at a tentative cost of Rs.10,62,500/- and the respondents also received the initial deposit of Rs.2,65,625/- being the 25% of tentative cost and that the balance sum of Rs.7,96,875/- was liable to be paid by the petitioner in equated monthly installments of Rs.13,620/- with interest at the rate of 19% per annum for a period of 15 years with effect from January, 2000. Later on, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by letter dated 24.2.2000 bearing No.A6/9260/99 informed the petitioner about the handing over of the said HIG individual house and the petitioner also took physical possession of the said HIG house vide letter dated 8.2.2001. Since then, the petitioner has been paying the monthly installments to the Housing Board. It is the further case of the petitioner that she raised a loan of Rs.6,49,180/- from ICICI Bank Ltd., and a cheque dated 27.3.2002 bearing No.738460 for Rs.6,49,180/- was issued by the ICICI bank in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board towards the balance cost of the said HIG house bearing No.I-2, F.T.Z. Phase III Tambaram. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has thus paid a total sum of Rs.16,08,040/- towards the said house, which is in excess of the total amount payable by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner met the Manager (Sales and Service) of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board/third respondent for preparation of the draft sale deed with a request to refund the excess amount after adjusting the total cost of the said HIG individual house. Thereafter, the petitioner also received a letter bearing No.Ka.Ka.Na.Kho/B2/7226/98 dated 26.4.2017 from the third respondent asking the petitioner to furnish various documents for completion of formality in execution of the sale deed in respect of the said house. Immediately the petitioner furnished the relevant documents by letter dated 2.6.2017 sent through registered post. In that letter, the petitioner also brought to the notice of the respondents about the excess amount paid by her and thereupon sought the statement of accounts besides refund of the excess amount. Finally, the third respondent informed the petitioner by letter dated 4.12.2017 enclosing a copy of the notification dated 12.8.2017 issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board highlighting clause 6 of the circular stating that the excess amount paid cannot be refunded. Once again the petitioner in her letter dated 23.12.2017 replied that clause 6 of the notification is attracted in the case of an allottee requesting for refund of the total cost who was unable to go for execution of the sale deed. But in the present case, the petitioner has paid the excess amount that was wrongly received by the respondents, which they are not entitled for. Hence the petitioner has rightly asked for the refund of the excess amount. As the respondents also have clearly admitted the case of the petitioner in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board abstract
