TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reate employment opportunities for educated unemployed. The Union of India called upon the State Governments and the Administration of Union Territories to formulate and send their proposals. Accordingly, the State Governments and the Union Territories formulated their proposals which were approved by the Government after consulting the Planning Commission and the Union Finance Ministry. In the Union Territory of Delhi the task of implementing the scheme was entrusted to defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3-Delhi Administration and Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short 'Discs') respectively. Sometime in July 1973 a scheme was advertised by defendant No-3 which was captioned as follows: DELHI ADMINISTRATION Offers A Unique Opportunity For Self Employment To Unemployed ENGINEERS . 3. The salient features of the scheme were that the unemployed Engineering Degree holders or diploma holder technicians were to be given training for three months in Entrepreneurial Development by DSDIC. On successful completion of the training they were to be considered for allotment of industrial sheds and all possible assistance was to be rendered to them for secu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve calendar months, the defendant No. 3 would be entitled to discontinue electricity and water supply and would also be entitled to terminate the lease and re-enter and resume possession of the premises. It is not disputed that the plaintiff did not pay the rent in accordance with the agreement in question and till date has merely paid a sum of ₹ 11,750.00 in this behalf, which fact is evident from his letter dated June 1,1987. The reasons for not making the payment in accordance with the agreement as advanced by the plaintiff is that the ownership of the sheds were required to be given to the entrepreneurs on hire purchase by defendant No. 3. In this regard the plaintiff has relied upon alleged policy statements and circulars of the Lt. Governor of Delhi and defendant No. 3. The first in point of time is the circular of the Lt.Governor dated March 9,1977 in which it was stated that the Delhi State Industries Development Corporation would sell the sheds to the entrepreneurs on hire purchase basis. According to the circular, the price was to be determined by a body, which was to comprise of Government representatives and the representatives of the entrepreneurs. Besides it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o March, 1982. 8. The said 25% payment was to be paid before May 15,1982. With regard to the balance of the total arrears of rent and the current rent the entrepreneurs were required to pay two Installments per month at the aforesaid rates. Out of the two Installments, one was to be appropriated towards the current month and the other was to be adjusted towards the arrears. This was to continue till the entire arrears were cleared by the entrepreneurs. By letter of the Federation of the Discs Entrepreneurs Association dated November 11, 1983, the entrepreneurs declined to pay the rent on the ground that the proforma of the receipt which the defendant No. 3 was proposing to get executed from the allottees was contrary to its announcement dated September 6,1983 in as much as the amount received by defendant No. 3 from the entrepreneurs was to be adjusted against hire purchase/rent Installments instead of hire purchase. The entrepreneurs wanted that the receipts should specify that the amount which was being paid by them was to be adjusted as hire purchase Installments only. Thus it is obvious that the payments of arrears of rent and the rentals for succeeding months were not paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay back the loan and interest to the banks and the financial institutions which resulted in increased liability of the defendant. The plaintiff according to the fresh offer was required to pay in the following manner: Option no. 1 100% Cash Down Total cost P 7,58,764.26 Option N0.2 75% Cash Down 4 7,62,669.94 and remaining 25% in equated 72 Installments. Option No. 3 50% cash down 4 7,66,575.63 and remaining 50% in equated 72 Installments. Option N0.4 25% cash down 4 7,74,387.00 and remaining 75% in 72 equated Installments. 10. Similar offers were also sent to the other entrepreneurs. This time again offers did not satisfy the expectations of the plaintiff and the other allottees. The plaintiff by its letter dated June 1,1987 disputed the price of the shed and the interest' which was required to be paid by him. 11. Again another offer of hire purchase was made by the defendant to all the plaintiffs by its letters dated May 2,1989 which also did not evoke favorable response from them. According to Mr. Kimti Lal the plaintiff, the defendant ought to have worked out the cost of the shed at the Cpwd rates which were prevalent in the year 1975-76. According to his calculations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o note that plaintiffs have paid small sums towards rentals of the sheds like the plaintiff in suit No. 2369 of 1988 who has merely paid a paltry sum of Rs.ll,750.00 towards the rent of the shed. Calculating the rent from the year 1976 to the date of filing of the suit, a few lakhs would be due from each of the plaintiffs to the defendant as per the terms of the agreements. The plaintiffs also failed to act as required by letter of the Chief Project Manager dated January 23,1979 whereby he had asked the entrepreneurs to pay the arrears in accordance with rates indicated therein. The letter also clarified that the amounts so deposited by the entrepreneurs would be adjusted against hire purchase Installments if and when a decision would be taken with regard to the same. It is not denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the sheds from the year 1976 or so but when it came to payment of rent they dithered. The same treatment was meted out by the entrepreneurs to another letter of the defendant dated May 1,1982 demanding payment of arrears from them. The excuse or justification for not making the payments is totally flimsy and untenable. According to the Federation of Discs Entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on the representation of a promisor, a promise alters his position, then the former must keep his word and is not allowed to recede from his promise as otherwise it will work injustice on the latter. In the present case it has not been shown that the plaintiffs who were already in possession of the sheds as lessees were induced by defendant No. 3 to alter their position on the basis of the alleged policy decision to make over the ownership of the sheds to them on hire purchase basis. The advertisement of July 1973 is silent as to how and on what basis the sheds would be given to the entrepreneurs. 20. At this stage it will be worthwhile to once again draw upon the facts of Suit No-2369/88 which would serve as an illustration to demonstrate that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not be attracted to the cases in hand. It is not denied that the plaintiff in the said suit executed an agreement on September 29,1976 in favor of defendant No. 3 in which he undertook to pay the amount of ₹ 2970.00 as monthly charges for Shed No.G-8, Rohtak Road Industrial Complex. As is evident the policy statements of the Lt.Governor dated March 9,1977 and defendant No. 3 dated March 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other party must act on the basis of that representation is missing the same will not apply. 22. It is also manifest from aforesaid policy decision that no representation was made by defendant No. 3 with regard to the price at which the sheds were to be sold on hire purchase basis to the plaintiffs. The policy was not definite and immutable and was liable to change as is evident from the categorical statement.. appearing in the circular dated March 15,1977 to the effect that the position stated therein was to be taken as provisional and was subject to change in the light of the further discussion with the bankers and other authorities . 23. An inchoate policy like the present one can neither attract the doctrine of promissory estoppel nor confer any rights and impose any duties on the parties. In these circumstances, defendant No. 3 cannot be asked to abide by the alleged policy of sale of the sheds on hire purchase basis if it chooses not to pursue the same. Letters of defendant No. 3 dated November 21, 1986, May 28, 1987 and May 2, 1989 are mere proposals for transfer of industrial sheds in question on hire purchase basis. The plaintiffs are at liberty to reject the offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l250.00 per month instead of ₹ 2970/ There is no justification whatsoever for not making the payment in accordance with the said letters. It is not difficult to imagine the plight of the defendant No. 3 who has been placed in a difficult situation because of the plaintiffs failure to make the payments. At this interlocutory stage it will neither be desirable nor appropriate to decide whether the rate at which defendant No. 3 has offered to transfer the sheds to the entrepreneurs is exorbitant or is not based on the declaration of the defendant that it will transfer the sheds on no profit, no loss basis. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the land was acquired by defendant No. 3 and sheds were constructed thereon by taking loans from the banks and the Government of India. This money was required to be returned to the banks with interest and in case of default in payment the interest liability would keep on mounting. Since the plaintiff and other allottees failed to make the payments in time, it Joes seem to me that this may have contributed to the mounting interest which the banks are charging defendant No. 3 for the monies advanced to it for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready paid. In the event of the plaintiffs paying the directed amount within ten days from today the order dated December 17, 1990 and February 13,1992 will remain in force till further orders. However in case any plaintiff fails to deposit the said amount within the aforesaid time, the interim orders dated December 17,1990 and February 13,1992 will stand vacated qua him without further reference to the court. Future rent/damages for use and occupation will be paid by the plaintiffs' the rates indicated in the aforesaid letters dated January 23, 1979 and May 1,1982 month by month by 7th of each calendar month. The orders dated December 17,1990 and 'February 13,1992 are accordingly modified to the extent 804 indicated above. 28. Before parting with the judgment I may notice another submission of the learned counsel for the defendant No. 3 to the effect that no relief can be granted in the applications filed by the plaintiffs for interim reliefs as the suits are not maintainable. He contended that the premises in question are public premises covered under the provisions of the Act. It was urged that the Act being a self contained code the jurisdiction of this court is bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
