VINOD M PATEL Vs. BRANCH MANAGER SIDCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S. No. 71 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District are the appellants in the present Second Appeal.

(2.) AS per the plaint allegations, the first appellant was allotted five sheds, bearing S. Nos. 1 to 5 and the second appellant was allotted one shed, bearing S. No. 6, at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Mangalapuram, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District, within the jurisdiction of Kadayanallur Sub-Registrar's Office by the Small Industries Development Corporation, on condition that the cost of the land and shed should be paid within a period of five years in instalments. Since, the appellants committed default, not once, but on several occasions, the second respondent, namely, the General Manager, SIDCO, Palvei Road, Kathibara Junction, Chennai-16, issued a show-cause notice, calling upon the appellants/plaintiffs to show-cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled. The said show-cause notice was issued on 28.1.2005. On receipt of the said show-cause notice, the appellants/plaintiffs paid some amount and avoided the cancellation order being passed. Subsequently, they again committed default in payment of the instalments, pursuant to which another show-cause notice was issued on 10.9.2005. AS no cause was shown and the account was also not regularized by making payment of the defaulted instlaments with penal interest, the second respondent passed an order on 2.1.2006, cancelling the allotments made in favour of the appellants. In the said order of cancellation, the appellants were called upon to vacate the industrial sheds and deliver vacant possession of the same to the SIDCO authorities. Contending that the arrangement between the appellants and SIDCO was a lease-cum-sale agreement and the jural relationship between the appellants and the SIDCO authorities as lessee-lessor did not get snapped by the order of cancellation of allotments and that for terminating the lease which was for industrial purpose, the second respondent ought to have issued notice giving six months time, but, the notice of eviction prescribed only 30 days time and therefore, the same was legally not sustainable, the appellants here in/plaintiffs approached the trial Court with the suit for permanent injunction not to evict the appellants/plaintiffs without following due process of law.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by and challenging the same, the appellants herein/plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 63 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, by a judgment, dated 19.12.2008. By the said judgement, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, dismissing the suit filed by the appellants herein/plaintiffs. The present Second Appeal is filed against the said judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, confirming the decree passed by the trial Court.