The court held that a lease agreement cannot be terminated before the expiration of the stipulated period for commencement of construction, affirming the trial court's decree in favor of the respondent-plaintiff.

Order :

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.1990 passed by District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.84/1986 whereby the suit preferred by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed in his favour and the appellant-defendant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.59,607.15.

3. Briefly the facts necessary to be noted are that the respondent-plaintiff applied for allotment of an Industrial Plot No.E-28 before the appellant-defendant for the purpose of establishment of an Ice and Cold Storage factory on 06.03.1982. Pursuant to the application of the respondent-plaintiff, the appellant-defendant directed the respondent-plaintiff to deposit the development charges amounting to Rs.16,000/-. The amount as directed by the appellant-defendant was not deposited, therefore, a show cause notice dated 30.04.1982 was served upon the respondent-plaintiff by the appellant-defendant. When the respondent-plaintiff did not respond to the said show cause notice, once again, a notice was issued on 29.05.1982 to the respondent- plaintiff to deposit the development charges. The respondent- plaintiff did not deposit the amount asked for by the appellant- defendant, therefore, ultimately the allotment was cancelled by the appellant-defendant vide order dated 23.08.1982. The respondent-plaintiff again approached the appellant-defendant for allotment of plot No.E-28 vide letter dated 18.12.1982 assuring the appellant-defendant that he will comply with all the terms and conditions imposed upon him. In pursuance of the application dated 18.12.1982, the respondent-plaintiff deposited the development charges and therefore, the appellant-defendant allotted Plot No.E-26 to the respondent-plaintiff. However, the allotment of Plot No.E-26 was subject to deposition of Rs.2533.35 as interest, since, the respondent-plaintiff failed to comply with the condition of depositing the interest amount, therefore, he was served with a letter dated 15.10.1983 with request to deposit the said amount. The appellant-defendant again informed the respondent-plaintiff for execution of the lease agreement vide letter dated 01.11.1983, but despite repeated communications, the respondent-plaintiff did not deposit the requisite charges. Vide communication dated 01.03.1984, the respondent- plaintiff sought time to deposit second installment of the charges due to the appellant-defendant. Finally, on 23.03.1984, a lease deed was executed between the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff for allotment of Industrial Plot No.E-26 and possession of the same was handed over to the respondent–plaintiff on 01.04.1984. In the lease agreement, a condition was imposed that the respondent-plaintiff shall commence construction of his industry within a period of six months from the date of execution of the lease deed and start the production within a period of 24 months. The respondent-plaintiff did not start the construction work of his industry, therefore, the appellant-defendant issued a letter on 21.04.1984 informing the respondent-plaintiff that he must commence the construction work within the stipulated period. Once again, vide notice dated 08.08.1984, the appellant reiterated the request made by it vide letter dated 21.04.1984. Since, the respondent-plaintiff failed to comply with the correspondences made and also failed to start the construction of his industrial premises, the appellant-defendant cancelled allotment of Plot No.E-26 made in favour of the respondent- plaintiff vide order/letter dated 15.09.1984. The respondent- plaintiff vide his letter dated 05.10.1984 filed an application for extension of time for another six months for complying with the condition mentioned in clause 2(d) of the lease agreement and for furnishing the map and documents relating to the same. The request made by the respondent-plaintiff was rejected by the appellant-defendant vide letter dated 19.10.1