By the Court.—Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for appellants and Sri S.A. Murtaza, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This is defendants’ appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) arising from judgment dated 29.3.1997 and decree dated 9.4.1997, respectively, passed by Sri Amar Singh, Additional Civil Judge(1), Bareilly decreeing Original Suit No. 370 of 1986, Nisha Agnihotri v. Food Corporation of India and another, for recovery of Rs. 15,99,369 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

3. The plaint case set up by plaintiff-respondent vide plaint dated 26.9.1986, amended vide Court’s order dated 12.11.1986 and 26.7.1989, is that plaintiff is owner of four acres of land situated on Bareilly-Pilibhit road. Defendant appellant-1 i.e. Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘FCI’) is a body corporate, carrying on business of purchase and storage of agricultural commodities. Defendant-2 is District Manager and Principal Officer, FCI at Bareilly district.

4. Defendants needed adequate space for storing ‘Ravi’ crop and wanted to take land with appurtenant building for storage of agricultural produce. Land of plaintiff was inspected by officers of FCI. They found land suitable and approved the same. Plaintiff offered to let out land to FCI on the conditions that lease would be for a minimum period of three years and rent chargeable shall be Rs. 0.40 per square ft. per month. Defendants vide letter dated 24.3.1986 accepted above conditions and required plaintiff to carry out certain constructions immediately over the land to make it usable for storage purpose. These conditions were:

(a) To keep the land ready by 15.4.1986 with brick soling.

(b) To construct 20' wide approach road connecting plot from main Highway with double layer of brick soling.

(c) To construct one R.C.R. Hume Pipe Culvert.

(d) To level the plot with heavy road roller.

(e) To fix at least 2 metre barbed wire fencing around the entire plot.

(f) To fix hand pump for water facility.

(g) To construct rooms for staff and security cabin near the gate.

5. The plaintiff in order to comply with the aforesaid conditions borrowed Rs. 7,00,000/- and more from bank, friends and relatives and by selling jewellary. She incurred expenses of more than Rs. 7 lacs and liability to pay interest on bank loan, to make land suitable and fulfill the condition as directed by FCI. Defendants took possession of entire land measuring 1,17,617 sq. ft. with appurtenant building etc. on 5.5.1986 and started storing agricultural produce thereon. During pendency of suit, on 25.11.1986 defendants vacated land and other property, and removed their effects without intimation or consent of plaintiff. As per contract, at the rate of Paise 40 per sq.ft. per month, defendants were liable to pay rent of Rs. 62,734.40 to plaintiff which they failed. Defendants insisted upon plaintiff to accept rent on much lower rate. Total amount of rent for three years comes to Rs. Rs. 22,48,438.40. Defendants have committed breach of contract causing loss of rent to plaintiff. She is entitled for compensation from defendants to the tune of Rs. 22,48,438.40 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Defendants have paid Rs. 94,459.15 towards part payment of rent for the period from 1.5.1986 to 25.11.1986 which amount was received by plaintiff without prejudice to her rights. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to recover Rs. 21,53,979.25 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum pendente lite and future interest thereon. The contract to let out land was completed when defendants took possession thereon. Agreed conditions were never modified or altered by both the parties. Defendants have also caused loss to plaintiff by imposing certain conditions for construction over the land so as to make it ready for use by them. For carrying out those conditions, plaintiff incurred huge expenses i.e.Rs.7,00,000/- and odd which has also caused apparent