JUDGMENT : 1. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court dated 24.04.2007 passed in A.S. No.2 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore, whereby the Lower Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the Trial Court, which had earlier dismissed the suit on 31.08.2006 in O.S. No.37 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham. 2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2004 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham. The suit was filed by the respondent/Municipality seeking recovery of money for the alleged losses suffered by them on account of the surrender of the shop by the appellant/defendant which was let out to him by the respondent/Municipality. 3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit is that even before the expiry of the lease cum licence, the appellant/defendant has surrendered the shop back to the respondent/Municipality, thereby causing loss to them for which, the suit was instituted seeking recovery of alleged losses. 4. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006 in O.S. No.37 of 2004 dismissed the suit on the ground that Ex.A1, the Gazette Notification, dated 16.02.2001, which is the basis of the respondent's claim is not applicable as the said notification applies only to daily markets and not to the shops that have been let out for a period of three years under a proper lease agreement. 5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit O.S. No.37 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham, the respondent/Municipality preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court viz., Principal District Court, Vellore in A.S. No.2 of 2007. 6. The Lower Appellate Court viz., Principal District Court, Vellore by its judgment and decree, dated 24.04.2007 reversed the findings of the Trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/Municipality and held the appellant/defendant is liable to compensate the respondent/Municipality to the extent of Rs.1,40,362/- together with interests and costs. The Lower Appellate Court further held that Exs.A1 and A6 are applicable to the appellant/defendant as they committed breach of contract by surrendering the shop even before the expiry of the lease. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2007 passed by the Lower Appellate Court viz., Principal District Court, Vellore in A.S. No.2 of 2007, this Second Appeal has been filed. 8. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2007 passed by the Lower Appellate Court viz., Principal District Court, Vellore in A.S. No.2 of 2007, this Second Appeal has been filed. 8. At the time of the admission of the Second Appeal, the following Substantial Questions of Law have been framed by this Court : (1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has properly appreciated the material evidence in the case namely, Ex.A-1, which is not admittedly applicable to the shops let out by the plaintiff, and which is applicable only to daily market? (2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in law in decreeing the suit based on Ex.A-1, which is admittedly applicable only to daily markets and when the terms and conditions in Ex.A-1 are not applicable to the suit shop? 9. Heard Mrs.R.Ramya, learned counsel for the appellant. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to Ex.A1, dated 16.02.2001, which is the Government Gazette Notification (Vellore District Gudiyatham Municipality) and in particular, she referred to Sl. No.3 contained therein and would submit that the same is not applicable to the appellant/defendant as he has not been allotted a shop in the daily market (rent on day to-day basis), but he has been granted a lease on a monthly rent basis for a period from 2001 to 2003. Therefore, she would submit that the terms and conditions contained in Ex.A1 will not apply to the appellant/defendant. 11. She also drew the attention of this Court to the Cross examination of the respondent's/plaintiff's witness (PW1) before the Trial Court and would submit that PW1 has himself admitted before the Trial Court that Ex.A1 will not apply to the appellant/defendant. 12. She then drew the attention of this Court to Ex.A6 (Licence agreement, dated 13.08.2001), licence granted to the appellant/defendant for a period of three years to run the shop and would submit that only those terms and conditions are applicable to the appellant/defendant and not the terms and conditions stipulated under Ex.A1. She would also submit that Ex.A6 does not provide for any recovery of damages by the respondent/Municipality for the losses suffered by them on account of the surrender of shop, even before the expiry of the lease cum licence period. 13. She would also submit that Ex.A6 does not provide for any recovery of damages by the respondent/Municipality for the losses suffered by them on account of the surrender of shop, even before the expiry of the lease cum licence period. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant then drew the attention of this Court to the findings of the Trial Court in O.S. No.37 of 2004 and would submit that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the respondent/Municipality. She then drew the attention of this Court to the judgment and decree, dated 24.04.2007 passed by the Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.2 of 2007 and would submit that the Lower Appellate Court erroneously reversed the findings of the Trial Court despite the admission made by the respondent/plaintiff witness (PW1) that Ex.A1 is not applicable to the appellant/defendant. 14. This Court has perused and examined Ex.A1 as well as Ex.A6, which are the necessary documents for the purpose of adjudicating this Second Appeal. 15. Ex.A1 is the Government Gazettee Notification (Vellore District Gudiyatham Municipality) dated 16.02.2001, which is the basis for the respondent's/plaintiff's claim. In the plaint, paragraph No.4, the respondent/Municipality has averred that on 16.02.2001 they have called for tenders to conduct public auction for the shops at Gudiyatham Town Dharanampet, West Tank Bund. 16. The District Gazette Notification dated 16.02.2001 is Ex.A1, which contains the terms and conditions for allotment of shops. As seen from Ex.A1, it is clear that it pertains to allotment of shops only on daily rent basis. However, the case of the appellant/defendant is totally different. The appellant/defendant has been granted lease cum licence for a period of three years as per Ex.A6 and not on daily rent basis. When the very basis of their claim made by the respondent/Municipality seeking recovery of their losses for surrender of the shop by the appellant/defendant even before the expiry of the lease cum licence period is the District Gazette Notification, dated 16.02.2001 marked as Ex.A1, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the respondent/Municipality by dismissing the suit as Ex.A1 will not apply to the appellant/defendant. However, the Lower Appellate Court by its Judgment and decree dated 24.04.2007 passed in A.S. No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore has reversed the findings of the Trial Court by total non application of mind to Ex.A1 as well as Ex.A6. However, the Lower Appellate Court by its Judgment and decree dated 24.04.2007 passed in A.S. No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore has reversed the findings of the Trial Court by total non application of mind to Ex.A1 as well as Ex.A6. The Lower Appellate Court has mis-appreciated Ex.A1 which pertains only to the shops that are let out on daily rent basis and does not pertain to shops which are let out on lease cum licence for a period of three years which is the case of the appellant/defendant. The Lower Appellate Court has also failed to take into consideration the admission made by the respondent's witness before the Trial Court (PW1) during the course of cross examination by the respondent/plaintiff witness (PW1), wherein he has categorically admitted that Ex.A1 is not applicable to the appellant/defendant. 17. The relevant extract of the cross examination of respondent/plaintiff witness (PW1) is reproduced hereunder : 18. As seen from the admission made by PW1, it is clear that Ex.A1, Gazette Notification does not apply to lease cum license granted for a period of three years, but applies only to shops which have been let out on daily rent basis. 19. Therefore this Court is of the considered view that the Lower Appellate Court ought to have confirmed the findings of the Trial Court by dismissing the appeal but instead erroneously allowed the appeal. 20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the Substantial Questions of Law formulated by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal which have been extracted supra are answered in favour of the appellant/defendant as the Lower Appellate Court has misdirected itself by erroneously holding that Ex.A1 is applicable to the appellant/defendant as the same is applicable only to daily markets which is not the case of the appellant/defendant, whose shop was let out for a period of three years under a separate agreement viz., Ex.A6. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is allowed. No costs.