Dismissed

S. Venugopal v. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn.

Telangana HC6 Dec 2014AS/1358/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by industrialist against dismissal of suit for possession of vacant land and declaration of recovery proceedings illegal. Court held vacant land not covered by lease, lease terminated due to rent default, and recovery proceedings valid.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Appeal dismissed, decree of trial Court confirmed as legal recovery of possession and rent.

S. Venugopal Vs A.P. Industrial… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

APPEAL SUIT No.1358 OF 1996

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The unsuccessful plaintiff in Original Suit No.32 of 1988, on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge (Now, Senior Civil Judge), Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad (For short, the ‘trial Court’) preferred this Appeal against the decree and judgment dated 08.03.1996.

¶5

2. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S. No.32 of 1988 will be adopted throughout this judgment.

¶6

3. The plaintiff, who is an un-employee, graduate in Science from Osmania University in the year 1966, filed the Suit seeking a direction to the 1^st defendant to deliver possession of the plaint schedule open land (which was described as part of the demised premises under the lease deed dated 18.06.1975) to the plaintiff for the purpose of running a factory by name ‘Sudha Non-Edible Oil Industry’ and for a declaration that the claim of the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.64,961.70 Ps. on the basis of lease deed dated 18.06.1975, marked as Ex.A-7, is illegal alleging that the plaintiff, who is willing to settle in his life by running a small scale industry, got attracted to the advertisement policies of the State Government to help un-employee graduates under the Self Employment Scheme (SES), verified the pamphlets and literature distributed and representations made by the officials of defendants to the intending entrepreneurs, opted to start a small-scale industry and estimated the project cost with necessary technical project by the Department. The plaintiff proposing to start a project i.e., small scale industry in the name and style of ‘Sudha NonEdible Oil Industry’ for extracting oil from neem seed, which is being used for manufacturing soaps etc., applied for registration of the same as an industry on 14.11.1974 and also applied to the 1^st defendant for

¶7

allotment of Ac.1.00 cents of land in Patancheru Industrial Development Area (IDA), Medak District, on 26.02.1975, while furnishing particulars of the project including estimated cost of construction of the structures required therefor. However, the District Collector, Medak, had issued a Temporary Registration Certificate No.TEMP/638/SSI/1974 as a registered Small Scale Industry (SSI). Moreover, there is delay in allotment of site in the Industrial Development Area of Patancheru, and on the alternative proposal made by the 1^st defendant, the plaintiff accepted for allotment of five sheds and the land appurtenant thereto, but he was only allotted three sheds bearing No.L-207, 208 and 209 and the land appurtenant to the sheds; among such three sheds, one shed was not available for ready occupation. Despite the requests made by plaintiff to the defendants, they did not handover the vacant possession of the 3^rd shed, as it was already in occupation of a third party, who was keeping machinery therein. Finally, the possession of the 3^rd shed was also handed over, entered into an agreement of registered lease dated 18.06.1975, but possession of the appurtenant land to the sheds was not delivered to him. Even according to the schedule annexed to the lease deed, the schedule of property is Factory Building Nos.L-207 to L-209 and the appurtenant land to each of the shed was not given to the plaintiff. Despite the representations, the defendants did not allot the site and represented that he is not entitled to use the open land situated to the east of the sheds and west of the road and stated allotment of land requires a separate allotment. Having no option, the plaintiff approached the officials of 1^st defendant for allotment of open site on the eastern side of the sheds. The allotted three sheds were not provided with amenities like water and electricity, though the 1^st defendant, promising to assist the plaintiff, obtained signatures on several printed forms and applications to provide basic amenities and supply of machinery through 2^nd defendant, did not provide the basic

¶8

amenities like electricity and water for running a Small Scale Industry. Thus, the 1^st defendant committed breach of terms and conditions of the lease.

¶9

4. The plaintiff obtained estimate for the machinery to start the industry incurring Rs.25,000/- towards 10% of the cost of the project to get the machinery installed, flooring was laid, electrical wiring etc., was done in anticipation of providing necessary amenities, but no amenities like electricity and water were provided, therefore, establishment of industry was delayed for two years, approximately. Thereupon, on 24.09.1977, the plaintiff complained to the higher authorities requesting to impress upon the concerned authority for supply of electricity. Later, the plaintiff was informed that he could obtain power (30 HP) from the Electricity Department and arrangements were made therefor vide letter dated 11.11.1977.

¶10

5. When the plaintiff was pursuing the matter, pressing the 1^st defendant to allot and hand over the open land between the sheds and the road on the eastern side, to his utter dismay the open land was given to Mr. Garg, an influential industrialist, denying allotment to the plaintiff though it was attached to the sheds under lease. Thereupon, the plaintiff personally met the Managing Director of the 1^st defendant on 25.11.1977, submitted an application complaining the irregularities and favouritism shown in favour of Mr. Garg, by the employees of the 1^st defendant; whereupon, the Director made an endorsement for allotment of site etc., to the plaintiff. Since the defendants did not allot the site appurtenant to the sheds, the plaintiff is not under an obligation to pay the rent on the assurance given by the Director of the 1^st defendant, but no purpose was served. While the matter stood thus, the 1^st defendant issued notice dated 10.02.1978 demanding the plaintiff to pay arrears of rent of Rs.9,330/- and interest of Rs.1,601/-. On the representation made by the plaintiff, the Chief Development

¶11

Officer of the 1^st defendant addressed a letter dated 02.06.1978 to the plaintiff informing that his case would be considered favourably and promised to allot additional sheds, if the plaintiff was ready to pay 50% of the arrears of rent and interest and the balance in quarterly instalments, but the plaintiff did not pay the stipulated amount, as the premises was not handed over to him, vacant site was not allotted to him and that he incurred Rs.25,000/- towards 10% of the project cost. However, paid Rs.3,600/- on 05.05.1980 with the hope that the facilities would be provided and the industry could be started soon. The 1^st defendant instead of allotting and handing over possession of additional sheds as promised, addressed a letter dated 22.06.1981 demanding him to hand over the vacant possession of the sheds with a threatened action to take possession on 03.07.1981; aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed Writ Petition No.4644 of 1981 seeking to quash the impugned notice. However, the writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 20.01.1987 observing that the facts were in dispute and that it was not a matter for adjudication under Article 226 of the constitution. Later, the 1^st defendant issued notice to the plaintiff through the 3^rd defendant for recovery of alleged due amount of Rs.64,961.72 Ps. under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 though the 1^st defendant is not entitled to recover rent at the rate of Rs.300/- p.m. Therefore, the proceedings issued by the 1^st defendant for recovery of possession of the schedule property and to recover rent due to a tune of Rs.64,961.71 Ps. is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the suit.

¶12

6. The 1^st defendant filed written statement admitting allotment of three sheds and entering into an agreement of lease, while denying the other allegations regarding the promise to provide electricity and water connection etc., contending that the plaintiff has to obtain electricity and water connection etc., for starting his small scale industry and, therefore, the allegations made against the defendants

¶13

are false. The plaintiff contravened the terms and conditions of lease deed and failed to pay rent after taking possession of the sheds allotted to him. Therefore, the 1^st defendant issued notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to pay arrears of rent with a threatened action to take possession, but the plaintiff did not pay arrears of rent, except payment of Rs.3,600/- on 09.05.1980.

¶14

7. The 1^st defendant issued several notices from time to time demanding payment of arrears of rent and interest thereon, but the plaintiff failed to comply the legitimate demand of the plaintiff; finally, a notice dated 22.06.1981, marked as Ex.B-6, was issued calling upon the plaintiff to surrender the possession of sheds by 03.07.1981 terminating the lease as he committed breach of terms and conditions of the lease agreement, which was challenged by the plaintiff by filing a writ petition before this Court, which ended in dismissal and failed to hand over possession of the property; thereupon, the 1^st defendant initiated proceedings for recovery of arrears of rent under the Revenue Recovery Act by issuing notice dated 05.11.1988 terminating the agreement of lease. Thus, the notices issued by the 1^st defendant are valid and that there was no agreement to hand over possession of the schedule property i.e., vacant site, thereby the 1^st defendant is not under an obligation to hand over possession of the vacant site and prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶15

8. The 2^nd defendant filed separate written statement contending that the 2^nd defendant, at the request of 1^st defendant, supplied machinery to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not repay the amount; thereupon, issued the 3^rd defendant issued a notice dated 05.11.1988 terminating the agreement and approached the District Collector to release the due amount to a tune of Rs.2,85,200.20 Ps. as on 07.06.1990, after adjusting the earnest money deposit of Rs.8,430/paid by the plaintiff under the Hire Purchase Agreement dated

¶16

21.07.1975. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the 2^nd defendant are valid and legal under law and prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶17

9. The 3^rd defendant did not file any written statement.

¶18

10. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

¶19

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of plaint schedule open land?

¶20

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration against the defendants 1 and 2 for claiming amounts on the basis of averments?

¶21

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction

¶22

restraining the defendants from claiming to recovery of Rs.64,961.70 Ps.?

¶23

4. To what relief?

¶24

11. During course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-23 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked.

¶25

12. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, considering oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit negating the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff.

¶26

13. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the unsuccessful plaintiff therein preferred the present appeal on various grounds and most of the grounds are general in nature. However, the main contentions of the plaintiff-appellant in the grounds of appeal are as follows:

¶27

a) The trial Court failed to consider the terms and conditions contained under Ex.A-7 lease deed in proper perspective;

¶28

b) It is further contended that when the 1^st defendant did not provide electricity and water connections and even did not take steps to provide those amenities despite demands, it amounts to breach of the promise made by the 1^st defendant; thereby, the plaintiff could not start the small-scale industry in the property allotted to him on lease. In such case, payment of rent does not arise; thereby, the demand made by the defendants 1 and 2 is illegal, but the trial Court did not consider the harassment of the plaintiff by the defendants without providing amenities and committed an error;

¶29

c) The trial Court also did not consider the notices under Exs.A-18 and A-19 properly;

¶30

d) The plaintiff is entitled to both the reliefs as there is an agreement to allot vacant site, but failed to hand over possession of the same; in such case, failure to pay the instalments amount under hire purchase agreement and rent under the lease agreement does not arise. However, if the entire evidence on record with reference to pleadings is taken into consideration, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition and, finally, prayed to allow the appeal setting-aside the impugned decree and judgment of the trial Court.

¶31

14. During course of argument, Mr. Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, would submit that on account of laches on the part of the 1^st defendant in providing amenities, the plaintiff could not start the industry within the time and could not pay the monthly rent to the 1^st defendant and instalments under hire purchase agreement to the 2^nd defendant. The letter given under Ex.A-18, dated 11.11.1977 and the contents of Ex.A-7 lease deed dated 18.06.1975 shall be taken into consideration to decide the real controversy between the

¶32

parties, but the trial Court did not consider the schedule of property mentioned in Ex.A-7. Added to that, the letters marked as Exs.A-18 and A-19 were also not properly considered by the trial Court and committed an error in dismissing the suit; finally prayed to allow the appeal setting-aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court.

¶33

15. Per contra, Mr. R. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 1^st defendant-1^st respondent, would submit that possession of the property i.e., three sheds was taken over long back, terminating the lease in terms of agreement of lease; thereby, the question of handing over possession of the vacant site described in the schedule does not arise and that too the recovery proceedings got initiated by the 1^st defendant for recovery of rent under the Revenue Recovery Act is in terms of Ex.A-7, agreement of lease, since the plaintiff failed to pay arrears of rent together with interest as agreed under Ex.A-7. Therefore, the same cannot be challenged in the Court of law, his remedy is elsewhere but not in a suit in civil Court and finally prayed to dismiss the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court.

¶34

16. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:

¶35

1) Whether the 1^st defendant leased out the vacant site described in the schedule under Ex.A-7 and committed breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement of lease, if so, is the plaintiff entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule vacant site?

¶36

2) Whether the Civil Court is competent to declare the proceedings initiated by the 1^st defendant for recovery of rent under the Revenue Recovery Act, if not, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that the proceedings dated 10.02.1978, issued are illegal and arbitrary?

¶37

17. POINT No.1: The undisputed facts are that the 1^st defendant issued Ex.A-4, pamphlet and Ex.A-5 literature calling applications for allotment of industrial sheds and open site in the industrial area at Patancheru; responding to Ex.A-4 the plaintiff applied for registration of a small-scale industry under Ex.A-1, obtained temporary registration under Ex.A-2 letter, applied for allotment of Ac.1.00 cents of vacant land at Patancheru industrial area under the original of Ex.A-6, but the plaintiff was allotted three sheds in kattedan industrial area for establishing oil extraction industry in the name and style of ‘Sudha Non-Edible Oil Industry’ executed Ex.A-7, the lease deed and, later, made necessary arrangements for establishing the industry in the industrial sheds allotted to the plaintiff by the 1^st defendant on lease. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff subsequently sent applications for allotment of open site appurtenant to the sheds, but the 1^st defendant did not allot the open site on the ground that the property leased out is only sheds in the vacant land. However, the plaintiff committed default in payment of rent and also hire purchase instalments to the 2^nd defendant, who supplied machinery for establishing the industry in the sheds leased out under Ex.A-7 to the plaintiff; thereupon, notice was issued by the 1^st defendant calling upon the plaintiff to pay arrears of rent and interest as agreed under Ex.A-7, but the plaintiff paid only Rs.3,600/- and committed default in payment of arrears of rent together with interest to a tune of Rs.21,011.90 Ps. Consequently, the 1^st defendant issued notice demanding to surrender vacant possession of the sheds terminating the lease, but the plaintiff did not surrender possession of the property to the 1^st defendant; thereupon, the defendants entered into possession of the property in terms of lease agreement and initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover arrears of rent together with interest. Similarly, the 2^nd defendant also demanded

¶38

for payment of hire purchase instalments and due to failure to pay hire purchase instalments, the defendants initiated proceedings for recovery of hire purchase amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. Thus, the plaintiff is a tenant under the 1^st defendant by virtue of Ex.A7 leased deed and, being the lessee, he has to discharge his obligations under Ex.A-7 lease deed.

¶39

18. The main endeavour of the plaintiff-appellant is that the appurtenant vacant site to the sheds allotted to him was not handed over to him so as to enable him to start industry; whereas the contention of the defendants is that the vacant site is not part of the demised premises covered by Ex.A-7; thereby, the 1^st defendant is not under an obligation to deliver vacant possession described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. At this stage, it is relevant to extract the suit schedule property for better appreciation and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶40

“All that piece of open land (admeasuring 45 Ft. x 50 Ft.) situated behind sheds L-207 to L-209 of Kattedan Industrial Development Area, Golconda Mandalam, R.R. District and bounded on the:

¶41

North : Lane South : Open land behind shed L-206 East : Road West : Sheds L-207 to L-209 in plaintiff’s possession.”

¶42

19. Whereas the demised premises covered by the lease deed is factory building Nos.L-207 to 209 situated at Kattedan village, Industrial estate, Kattedan District, Hyderabad. The cost of the sheds is Rs.33,750/- at Rs.11,250/- each, bounded by:

¶43

North - Shed No.L-206, East - Road,

¶44

South - Shed No.L-217 and West - Road.

¶45

On an area of 30 x 15 x 3 having measuring 1350 Sq. Ft. and a compound wall and having Block of bath latrine and urinals measuring together with the fixtures and fittings, listed separately, in the compound.

¶46

20. On comparison of the schedule of demised premises covered by Ex.A-7, the total extent leased out was only 1350 Sq. Ft. consisting of three sheds bearing Nos.L-207 to 209, in the industrial area of Kattedan. The total extent of land claimed by the plaintiff in the suit schedule is 45 Ft. x 50 Ft. is 2250 Ft., which is more than the demised premises covered by Ex.A-7; at best the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the schedule of property mentioned in the lease deed, if possession is not delivered in pursuance of Ex.A-7, lease deed. If for any reason, the 1^st defendant did not deliver vacant possession of the property under the lease agreement, Ex.A-7, the remedy open to the plaintiff is to seek recovery of possession by filing a suit, but the plaintiff claimed possession of the property which is not covered by Ex.A-7 lease deed. However, it is evident from the correspondence between the plaintiff and 1^st defendant that the 1^st defendant by letter dated 09.01.1976, marked as Ex.A-8, requested the plaintiff to install machinery immediately and obtain electrical connection with a threat to cancel the allotment; thereupon, the plaintiff addressed Ex.A-9, letter to the 1^st defendant to complete the internal wiring as it could not be done earlier. In fact, the 1^st defendant complained that the premises was kept under lock and key, therefore, there was no access for the Assistant Engineer of the 1^st defendant to complete internal wiring and requested the plaintiff to keep the premises open so as to have access to the premises for completion of internal wiring, but the plaintiff did not co-operate for completion of the said work; on the other hand, issued a

¶47

reply letter dated 27.08.1976, marked as Ex.A-16 making several allegations against the Junior Engineer of Electricity and the Joint Development Officer of the 1^st defendant demanded for payment of Rs.11,203.33 Ps. towards the loss sustained by the plaintiff. This correspondence, at best, shows that the plaintiff requested to deliver him the schedule property, but it was not delivered as it is not a part of the demised premises covered by Ex.A-7. In any view of the matter, when the alleged schedule property is not part of the demised premises, the 1^st defendant is not under an obligation to deliver vacant possession of the property. Even assuming for a moment, that the 1^st defendant agreed to allot open site on his application and on payment of any amount, it is not an agreement as the plaintiff did not comply the conditions stipulated under Ex.B-3, letter dated 02.06.1978. The request made in Ex.B-3 letter i.e., payment of 50% of the rent arrears for the sheds already allotted to him and payment of balance in two quarterly instalments together with interest, the plaintiff did not comply the legitimate demand of the 1^st defendant and continued to pester 1^st defendant for allotment of additional site appurtenant to the sheds. Therefore, the request of the plaintiff cannot be accepted by the 1^st defendant for allotment of additional site or sheds to start the industry.

¶48

21. As seen from the contents of Ex.A-7 and the correspondence between the parties, particularly Ex.B-3, the demised premises is only 3 sheds bearing No.L-207 to 209 in a total extent of 1350 Sq. Ft. within the boundaries mentioned hereinabove, but the plaintiff demanded to claim recovery of possession of the property which is not covered by the schedule of property under the original of Ex.A-7. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the schedule property belongs to him or leased out to him under the original of Ex.A-7. Thus, the plaintiff has no right to claim recovery of possession of the property either as owner or as a lessee under Ex.A-7. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is not based on any legal right and, consequently, not entitled to claim recovery of

¶49

possession. Even assuming for a moment, that the schedule property is part of the demised premises covered by Ex.A-7, in view of termination of the lease for non payment of arrears of rent and failure to start the industry within the time specified under Ex.A-7, by issuing notice the plaintiff is disentitled to recover possession of the schedule property i.e., vacant site.

¶50

22. During course of argument, learned counsel for the 1^st defendant-1^st respondent would contend that the possession of demised premises was taken over as per the procedure and in terms of Ex.A-7; thereby, the relief claimed by the plaintiff became infructuous. However, the same is disputed but no evidence is available on record. In any view of the matter, the notice issued by the 1^st defendant, marked as Ex.A-20, demanding the plaintiff for payment of arrears of rent and interest accrued up to 31.09.1980 complaining that the sheds were kept idle and not put to any use and caused substantial damage to the sheds, thereby requested to hand over vacant possession on or before 16.10.1980 with threatened action to take vacant possession of the sheds, in case, the plaintiff failed to start industry. Later, by issuing Ex.A-21 notice dated 28.05.1981 the 1^st defendant demanded for payment of Rs.24,500/- up to 31.04.1981 and determined the lease in terms of lease agreement directing the plaintiff to deliver vacant possession of the unit within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice. The fact of issuance of Ex.A-21 notice is admitted and the plaintiff himself produced Ex.A-21 notice. Therefore, by virtue of Ex.A21, the lease is terminated and, consequently, the question of handing over possession of the alleged schedule property, even if it is found part of the demised premises, does not arise.

¶51

23. As per the terms and conditions of Ex.A-7, the plaintiff has to pay a monthly premium or rent of Rs.300/- before the 5^th day of each calendar month and keep the premises as factory and the lessee shall

¶52

be responsible for complying all rules at his cost. The lessee shall be responsible for preparation of necessary plans and obtain approval from the relevant authorities, as required under the factory rules and regulations for final approval of the lessor. The lessee, if for the purpose of obtaining the approval of the authorities for any additions or any alterations, is required for the premises shall at his own cost make additions or alterations after obtaining written permission of the lessor. Any additions or alterations to the premises carried out by the lessee will be subjected to removal on the expiry of the said terms at the cost of the lessee.

¶53

24. According to condition No.4, the lessee shall hand over the factory premises to the lessor on the expiry of the said term of lease, earlier on determination as the case may be in the same condition in which the premises was taken by the lessee at the time of occupation subject to the provisions under condition No.(h) 3 mentioned above. It is the obligation of the plaintiff to apply for concerned authorities for applying electricity and water connections etc., and the 1^st defendant is no way responsible for providing electrical and water connections etc., for running the industry; apart from that, when the lease is expired due to afflux of time, the lessee shall hand over the premises in the same condition or on determination of the lease. Here, the lease was for a period of 5 years commencing from 18.06.1975 to 17.06.1980 subject to other conditions for payment of rent at Rs.300/- p.m. in advance and paying Rs.3,000/- as deposit etc., but the plaintiff did not pay rent from the date of taking possession of the industrial sheds and committed default; thereby, the 1^st defendant issued Ex.A-21 notice determining the lease but the plaintiff did not hand over vacant possession of the premises. Therefore, in terms of Ex.A-7, the plaintiff is under an obligation to hand over vacant possession after the expiry of the lease time or on determination but failed to do so. Thus, as on today, there was no relationship of lessor and tenant between the 1^st

¶54

defendant and plaintiff and, thereby, not entitled to claim recovery of possession of the vacant land described in the schedule annexed to the plaint, assuming that it is a part of the demised premises.

¶55

25. The trial Court, after appreciation of entire evidence on record, rightly concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession of the property. However, the same is challenged before this Court raising several contentions attributing mala-fides to the 1^st defendant for not delivering possession of vacant land described in the schedule annexed to the plaint but none of those mala-fides were proved by any reliable evidence and, on the other hand, the documentary evidence established that the plaintiff committed default in payment of rent and clinging on the property even after determining the lease by issuing Ex.A-21 notice. Therefore, the possession of the plaintiff, if any, is illegal and the plaintiff shall be treated or deemed as trespasser. On reappraisal of entire evidence, I find no iota of evidence to establish the right of the plaintiff to claim recovery of possession of the schedule property and, apart from that I find no error or illegality warranting interference in the finding of the trial Court. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover vacant possession of the schedule property annexed to the plaint. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the 1^st defendant-1^st respondent and against the plaintiffappellant.

¶56

26. POINT No.2: The plaintiff contended that issuance of notices marked under Exs.A-21 and A-22 by the 1^st plaintiff for recovery of amount is illegal, arbitrary and the defendants are not entitled to claim the amount as the 1^st defendant failed to provide necessary amenities to run the industry. As discussed in the earlier paragraphs, it is for the plaintiff to make necessary arrangements like obtaining plans, electricity and water connections from the concerned authorities, however, it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-

¶57

appellant that as per Ex.A-4, the 1^st defendant has to provide necessary assistance to the plaintiff in obtaining electricity and water connections etc., and drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.A-5. Even a bare look at Ex.A-5, literature, the 1^st defendant agreed to play effective role to inspire confidence of the banks on the one hand, and to offer assistance to small scale industrialists on the other, and the 1^st defendant undertook to scrutinise the project report, suggest modifications, if necessary, and process his application thoroughly before it is recommended to the banks for sanctioning his loans. This part of Ex.A-5 is of no assistance to the plaintiff. Even under Ex.A-4, the 1^st defendant never agreed to provide electricity and water connections; thereby, at best, the plaintiff may process the application, if any, made in obtaining electricity and water connections from the concerned authorities. Therefore, the contention that the plaintiffappellant could not start the industry on account of failure of the 1^st defendant to provide basic amenities is ex-facie false, since the 1^st defendant never agreed to provide those amenities to run the industry. As per the material available on record and in view of my foregoing discussion, the plaintiff committed default in payment of rent and the defendants demanded for payment of rent, several times and finally a notice under Ex.A-21 was issued demanding payment of arrears of rent of Rs.24,500/- determining the lease. One of the terms and conditions in Ex.A-7 is that, in case of default, the lessor i.e., the 1^st defendant is entitled to recover arrears of rent by initiating the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. Assuming that there is no condition in Ex.A-7 to recover rent as land revenue but by virtue of Section 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1998, 1^st defendant is entitled to recover the rent as if it is land revenue, invoking provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 53 of the A.P. Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, reads as follows:

¶58

“53. Dues to be recovered as an arrear of land Revenue: All sums due or payable by any person to the Corporation are recoverable by it on account of any charge, costs, expenses, fees, rent, compensation, or on any other account under this Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder or any agreement made with the Corporation and all charges or expenses incurred in connection therewith shall, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.”

¶59

27. When the plaintiff agreed for recovery of arrears of rent invoking provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act under Ex.A-7, he cannot now contend that the 1^st defendant is not entitled to recover the amount or even as per Section 53 of the A.P. Infrastructure Development Corporation Act, 1^st defendant is entitled to recover the rent. When, there is an agreement between the plaintiff and 1^st defendant for recovery of arrears of rent and agreement between the plaintiff and 2^nd defendant for recovery of hire purchase instalments amount by initiating proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, it is not open for the plaintiff-appellant to contend now that the proceedings issued by defendants 1 and 2 are illegal in view of the agreement between the plaintiff and 1^st defendant, Ex.A-7, and hire purchase agreement between the plaintiff and 2^nd defendant. Hence, I find no ground to declare that the notices marked as Exs.A-20 and A-21 are illegal and arbitrary.

¶60

28. The relief of declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is purely discretionary and the Court has to exercise such discretion judiciously and, at the same time, the party who seeks the discretionary relief has to approach the Court with clean hands, but in the instant case the plaintiff is a chronic defaulter in payment of arrears of rent to the 1^st defendant and hire purchase amount to the 2^nd defendant. Having obtained possession of three sheds under Ex.A-7,

¶61

the plaintiff did not start the industry though lease period of five years has been elapsed. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant approached the Court with tainted hands, the trial Court rightly declined to exercise its discretion to grant declaratory relief in favour of the plaintiff. Since I find no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court, I find that it is a fit case for dismissal. Hence, the point is decided in favour of the defendants-respondents and against the plaintiffappellant.

¶62

In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment dated 08.03.1996, passed in Original Suit No.32 of 1988, on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad

¶63

In consequence, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed.

¶64

_____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 06-12-2014. Dsh

¶65

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶66

¶67

APPEAL SUIT No. 1358 OF 1996

¶68

Date. 06-12-2014

¶69

DSH

S. Venugopal v. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Venugopal v. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.G. Rama Krishna Vs Smt. M.L. Sharada

Smt. K. Sampoornamma (Died) per LRs a- 2 to 4 Vs Thiruvakadu Jagadeswari

Kondru Ramulu Vs Kondru Ramayya

M.Satyavatamma Vs v.Prabhavathi

Bandari Rathnaiah Vs Smt. Haji Begum , Haji Maa

G. Subramanyam Reddy, S/o Late G Narsimha Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.