1. This is plaintiff s appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code ) challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to a declaration declaring letter dated 6-3-1991 issued by the defendant-respondent as illegal, arbitrary, non est and void ab initio etc. It is appropriate to mention that by the aforementioned communication, the defendant-respondent has withdrawn the Provisional Letter of Allotment (for brevity, the PLA ) Ex. PW. 5/99, dated 6-3-1991 by recording reason that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to complete the formalities envisaged in the PLA within a period of 180 days from the date of issuance of the PLA. It has been found that the formalities regarding registration with the Director, Small Scale Industries is dated 12-1-1990 which was one week after the expiry of 180 days. It was also observed that one month extension sought by the plaintiff-appellant was granted on 28-2-1990 by requiring the plaintiff-appellant to pay the enhanced price of Rs. 595/- per square metre as against the original price of Rs. 250/- per square metre. The aforementioned enhanced price was to be charged in accordance with the conditions of the PLA, namely, condition No. 6 read with proviso to condition No. 5. Certain observations were also made with regard to the formality of obtaining loan to meet the total cost of the project. It has also been observed by the defendant-respondent that the plaintiff-appellant was granted opportunity of hearing on 25-2-1991 by the Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation at Chandigarh (for brevity, HSIDC ). The contention raised by the plaintiff-appellant at the time of personal hearing that the project of Magnetic Compasses would be accommodated within the sanctioned loan amount was not considered adequate and the aforementioned contention was rejected. It was also held that the project on the plot measuring 2000 square metres could be accommodated in the sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was also held to be insufficient to cover the project because the cost of the project worked out was to be Rs. 12 lacs. A number of other observations were made in support of the order withdrawing the PLA.

2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant as disclosed before the Courts below is that the defendant-respondent invited applications for allotment of plots in industrial estate known as Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon in the year 1988 and the plaintiff-appellant applied for a plot measuring 4000 square metres. He submitted a bank draft dated 29-3-1988 for an amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards payment of 10% costs of a plot measuring 4000 square metres. A PLA was issued requiring the plaintiff-appellant to accept the allotment within the stipulated period of 35 days and he was to complete the specified formalities within a period of 180 days from the date of issuance of PLA. The aforementioned interpretation with regard to 180 days adopted by the defendant-respondent was challenged by the plaintiff-appellant because it was asserted that there was no such condition mentioned in the PLA, Ex. P.W. 5/17 dated 5-7-1989. It was further asserted that the plaintiff appellant was asked to deposit Rs. 500/- as extension fee in accordance with the proviso to condition No. 5 of the PLA. Some correspondence between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent took place, whereby the plaintiff-appellant sent reminders and requested the defendant-respondents for issuance of a final letter of allotment culminating into delivery of possession. However, the defendant-respondent withdrew the PLA on 6-3-1991 and also finally refused to accede to the request of the plaintiff-appellant.

3. The case of the defendant-respondent before the Courts below has been that the plaintiff-appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property as the PLA does not confer any legal ri