BIMLESH TEWARI Vs. FOOD COPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment delivered on May 14, 1981, this appeal is preferred by the appellants against Food Corporation of India (FCI). It was alleged in the plaint that at the representation of FCI appellants constructed godown at Hapur, it was pleaded that FCI assured that it would occupy the said store for a period of five years and by acting upon this representation, the plaintiffs/appellants constructed their godown at Hapur for use and occupation by the FCI on payment of compensation/rent at the rate of Rs.20 per 100 sq.ft. It is admitted position that FCI occupied the godown on August 1972. It was alleged that in violation of the term of the minimum occupancy guarantee, the respondents informed vide their letter dated January 25 , 1974 that they would release the godown on February 9, 1974 and would not pay compensation for use and occupation with effect from that date. It was contended by the appellants that no legal notice was served and thus the godown remained at the risk of the respondent and it was only on 21st June, 1976 that the appellants were able to let the godowns to another party. It was also stated that the godown was found abandoned in May and June, 1976. Appellants claimed damages in the sum of Rs.56,467.60/- at the rate of Rs.1969.80 per month for the period from February 1, 1974 to June 20, 1976. Besides, they also claimed Rs.3,000/- on account of loss or damage to property and Rs.10,054.57/- on account of extra interest which they had to pay to their bankers on account of loan incurred in connection with the construction of the godowns.

(2.) Respondents denied that they ever induced the appellants to construct the godown and took the stand that offer to take the godowns on lease was accepted subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in letter dated March 29, 1972. It was the stand of the respondents that as the appellants failed to comply with the conditions regarding specifications of construction, therefore, agreement regulating the tenancy and its duration could not be arrived at and regular lease deed for a period of five years was not executed. The claim of damages under various heads was also disputed by the respondents. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

(3.) The whole controversy revolves round two aspects. As to what were the specifications for construction of godown issued by the respondents to the appellants, secondly whether a concluded contract came into existence between the parties on the basis of correspondence exchanged which was also acted upon. Whether in the absence of a registered lease deed, if any concluded contract on the basis of correspondence could have come into existence. The learned Single Judge while deciding issues nos. 1 and 3 held that on the basis of material on record, the construction made by the appellants was not in accordance with the specifications of the respondents. In this regard, the learned Trial Court relied upon a report which is Ex.DW-1/1 dated August 5, 1972, inter alia, stating that according to the specifications the brick work foundation and super structure should have been made with cement mortar and not with mud mortar as was the case with the godown in question. To appreciate the whole controversy, the report, which has been relied upon by the Trial Court for arriving at its finding, is reproduced below: "Exhibit DW-1/1 As per the instructions of the DM vide his letter No.E.10(35) Const/Kanti Dev-Sharma/K.C. Sharma dt.27.7.72 I had gone to see the new godowns of Smt.Kanti Devi Sharma and K.C.Sharma and Dhanwantri Sharma and Smt. Bimlesh Tiwari alongwith SAM(QC) and Godown Supdt., Hapur. The following were some of the points which were not in accordance to the FCI Specifications.