F C I Vs. TEKCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Food Corporation of India & its authorities have approached this Court by filing the present appeal under Sec.96 of the CPC being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2005 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Anoopgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 41/2004 decreeing the suit filed by partnership firm M/s. Tekchand and holding the plaintiff firm entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,67,970 with simple interest @9% per annum from the date of filing suit till realization.

(2.) The suit of the plaintiff inter-alia averred that the defendant Corporation by its letter dated 24.01.2001 proposed to hire 8 godowns (plinths) with the guarantee to keep the plinths on rent initially for a period of two years and thereafter called the plaintiff firm for negotiation at Jaipur on 08.05.2001 and on acceptance of the plaintiff firm the proposal of the appellant for hiring of 8 godowns (plinths) on 29.01.2001, amended lay out plan for the plinths was provided and the plaintiff firm accordingly got constructed required 8 plinths incurring expenditure of about 20 lacs in view of the correspondence with the Regional Office of the defendantappellant Corporation that the plinths would be hired for a minimum period of 2 years. It is stated that on completion of the plinths, same were inspected by the District Manager, FCI, Sri Ganganagar and an agreement was executed between the parties for taking on rent those plinths @ Rs.49788 per month. It is alleged that the Corporation paid the rent to plaintiff for the plinths only for the period upto 13.10.2002 but discontinued paying the rent thereafter on baseless grounds and when the plaintiff drew attention of the defendants towards the agreement and correspondence between the parties for regularly making payment of rent till 13.04.2004, the defendant assured the plaintiff for payment but did not pay the same and handed over the premises to the plaintiff on 20.06.2004. According to the plaintiff the notice sent for payment of the rent yield no result hence by filing the suit claim for recovery of rent was made for the period from 1.11.2002 to 13.04.2004 amounting to Rs.8,67,970 with interest 12% per annum.

(3.) Replying to the case of the plaintiff that on the written assurance of defendant Food Corporation of India for two years' occupancy guarantee the plaintiff got constructed eight plinths by spending Rs.20 lacs excluding the cost of the land and same were rented out to the Food Corporation of India under lease agreement for two years from 14.04.2002 to 13.04.2004 and as such before completion of the stipulated period of two years the possession of the plinths could not be given and plaintiff could not be deprived of agreed rent till the completion of stipulated period of lease and the lease agreement for hiring Plinths dated 12.07.2002 could not be revoked unilaterally as the Food Corporation of India was bound to abide by the terms of the lease agreement. The defendants denied the averment made in the plaint relating to taking the plinths for two years' on guarantee basis so also executing any agreement for that purpose. As regards lease agreement for hiring the godowns, the defendants took the stand that rent was payable according to clause II of the lease agreement which was executed on 12.07.2002 in between plaintiff and defendant No.3 i.e. @ 45 paise per sq.ft. per month for the actual occupation of godown. The defendants further stated that as per the directions of Senior Regional Manager, a letter was sent by the Assistant Manager(Depot), Annoopgarh on 15.11.2002 for dehiring 7 plinths out of the 8 hired plinths and to take possession of the plinths but the plaintiff refused to receive the letter and the notice for dehiring the plinths sent to the plaintiff was not replied by it. The defendants in the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff for Rs.8,67,970 stated that the actual rent payable amounting to Rs.1,28,296 was refused by the plaintiff and the defendants were not in possession of dehired 7 plinths after 01.11.2002. Objections were taken by the defendants that the plaintiff did not take care to carry out necessary works for proper storage of goods despite service of many notices and failed to provide facilities as per the terms of the lease. Defendants denied payment for the vacated plinths and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.