Judgment :- 1. The defendant is the appellant. 2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff conducted annual lease of right to vend toddy and arrack from 1.9.1972 to 31.8.1973 for shop No. 33, Ruddrakotti Village, on 3.7.1972 through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu. The conditions of auction was supplied to the bidders and were read over and explained to them before they took part in the auction. There were two bidders of whom the defendant was the highest and his offer was Rs. 5,200/- per month. He has paid Rs. 200/- towards initial deposit and half month rent. Thereupon the auction was confirmed by the Collector. The defendant paid 1 1/2 months rent on 10-7-1972 and commenced the vending of toddy. He has paid the rent for the months of September and October, 1972. In all, he has paid Rs. 21,000/-. The highest bidder will have to apply for licence stating the location of the proposed shop within three days of the auction. The defendant had applied for licence. The defendant has paid two months rent including half months rent and deposited within seven days from the date of auction and the defendant has paid the said amount also. As per the condition No. VII, on the failure of the highest bidder to apply for licence, complying with the conditions and executing the agreement, the shop may be leased again and the defaulting bidder will have to make good the deficiency between the highest total amount payable for whole period under the original sale and the total amount by the successful bidder at the re-sale. The deposit made by the original bidder will also be forfeited. As per condition No. VII, on the failure of any person to make a deposit or apply for licence, the shop may be resold. The re-sales under this condition will be under the risk of the defaulting bidder. The loss will be recoverable from the defaulting bidder. Since the defendant committed breach of terms and conditions of auction in not paying the amount, and not conducting the shop for the auction period, the shop was again leased and the re-auction was held on 14-12-1972 and 15-12-1972. One John was the highest bidder at Rs. 700/- per month and the re-sale was confirmed in his favour. The total amount payable by the defendant for 12 months is Rs. 62,400/-. One John was the highest bidder at Rs. 700/- per month and the re-sale was confirmed in his favour. The total amount payable by the defendant for 12 months is Rs. 62,400/-. The total amount paid by him is Rs. 20,800. The total amount realised by the Government is Rs. 26,400/-, since the second successful bidder paid Rs. 5,600/-. There is a loss of Rs. 36,000/- to the Government. The defendant has to make payment of the same with interest at 9% per annum. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant in his written statement contends as follows: The terms and conditions were not read over to the bidder and to this defendant while receiving the initial deposit of Rs. 200/-. The defendant was the highest bidder but he has not applied for any licence as alleged, since no order of confirmation was served on the defendant at any time. Notice of re-auction was not served on the defendant. The defendant was not informed about the re-auction and re-sale. There is no agreement of sale between the defendant and the plaintiff. The allegation that he has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the auction is not correct. The allegation that the defendant has to pay Rs. 62,000/- and that the plaintiff has incurred a loss is not correct. The defendant has actually suffered loss. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed. 4. On the above pleadings, after trial, the learned Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for, upholding the plaintiffs contention. 5. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has come forward with this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the claim of the plaintiff that the conditions of auction where served on the defendant before the auction was held and they were read over to him, is not correct and in support of his above contention, the learned senior counsel has shown the printed notice of privilege of sale of excise which contains the conditions of auction sale running to 19 pages and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the very fact that the conditions run to 19 pages would show that the plaintiffs case that the conditions were read over to the defendant and the other bidder, cannot be true and it has to be dismissed. No doubt, the conditions of auction sale which is in a printed booklet marked as Ex. A-3 runs to 19 pages could not have been read over to the bidders in the auction before the commencement of the auction. But the failure of the plaintiff to read the entire conditions and terms of the auction cannot be given much importance if it is shown that the defendant is aware of the terms and conditions of the auction. For that, we have to see the evidence or D.W. 1. D.W. 1, the defendant has stated during cross examination that the auction was started with the upset price fixed at Rs. 1000/- and he bid at the auction for Rs. 5,200/- per month. He would admit that the bid list is Ex. A-13 in which he has signed. It is also stated by him that in the said bid list, it is specifically stated that the bidders were informed of the conditions of the auction. A perusal of Ex. A-13 would show that in the above bid list, it is written in Tamil that the conditions of bid were informed. It also mentions the upset price, the name of the unsuccessful bidder and the defendant who is the successful bidder and it has been signed by the defendant and also attested by three witnesses. If the defendant contends that the conditions of the auction were not informed to him as mentioned in Ex. A-13, it would amount to letting oral evidence against the terms of the written document. In those circumstances, the burden is heavy on him to prove his above contention. He ought to have examined any one of the attestors who had signed below him to show that the conditions were not informed to the bidders. But, he has not chosen to do so. In the above circumstances, Ex. A-13 has to be taken as evidence of the fact that the conditions of the bid have been informed to the bidders. In his evidence, the defendant himself has admitted that he had come to know of the terms and conditions. Therefore, it is not open for him to contend that the conditions were not made aware to him. It is further stated by him, since he was a successful bidder as per the conditions of the auction, he has deposited half months rent of Rs. 2,600/-. Therefore, it is not open for him to contend that the conditions were not made aware to him. It is further stated by him, since he was a successful bidder as per the conditions of the auction, he has deposited half months rent of Rs. 2,600/-. It is further stated by him that if the auction in his favour is confirmed, he has to deposit 1 1/2 months rent and accordingly, he has deposited 1 1/2 months rent. It is also stated by him that he has paid the rent for the months of September and October, 1972 also, and it is for conducting the shop for those two months. According to D.W. 1, he has to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 5,200/- per month till 31-8-1973 but he did not pay so, and he did not pay the rent subsequent to November, 1972. The evidence of D.W. 1 would thus show that even though it is contended by the defendant that the terms and conditions of the auction were not read over to him, he was aware of the terms and conditions of the auction. The learned senior counsel has also argued that there are no records signed by the defendant which would show that the defendant was aware of the terms and conditions. This argument is not tenable in the light of Ex. A13. According to the learned counsel appearing for the defendant, he has not pointed out any place where he could carry on the business and licence was not issued in favour of the defendant to make the defendant liable when he commits default in payment of rent. The evidence of D.W. 1 which I have already extracted would show that the defendant had admitted that he was aware of the terms and conditions of the auction and he was running the shop which he had taken on lease for two months and it is only from the third month, he has committed default in payment of the rent. These acts as admitted by the defendant would indicate that the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant - that he had not jointed out any place where he could carry on he business and he was not issued any licence are all arguments which cannot be accepted. 7. These acts as admitted by the defendant would indicate that the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant - that he had not jointed out any place where he could carry on he business and he was not issued any licence are all arguments which cannot be accepted. 7. The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that even assuming that the defendant has sustained loss and could not carry on the business in the shop in which he is successful bidder, the defendant has failed to avail the concessions given by the Government in the G.O. to wipe off the arrears provided the defaulting bidder pays one months rent within the stipulated period and passed a Government Order to that effect. Since the evidence has disclosed that the defendant has not only committed default in payment of rent but also ailed to avail the concessions given to such defaulting bidders by the Government, as per the terms and conditions of the auction he has to make good the loss suffered by the Government by re-auctioning the shop. As regards the re-auction and the rent paid by the successful bidder in the second auction etc., there is no dispute and therefore, I am of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge has considered all the aspects into consideration and has rightly passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff which does not call for any interference by this court. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Soon after the pronouncement of this judgment, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant requests that the appellant may be permitted to pay the amount in six monthly instalments. The appellant is, accordingly, permitted to pay the decree amount in six instalments on or before 10th of every month commencing from December 10, 1994.