Order : (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.1990 passed by District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.84/1986 whereby the suit preferred by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed in his favour and the appellant-defendant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.59,607.15. 3. Briefly the facts necessary to be noted are that the respondent-plaintiff applied for allotment of an Industrial Plot No.E-28 before the appellant-defendant for the purpose of establishment of an Ice and Cold Storage factory on 06.03.1982. Pursuant to the application of the respondent-plaintiff, the appellant-defendant directed the respondent-plaintiff to deposit the development charges amounting to Rs.16,000/-. The amount as directed by the appellant-defendant was not deposited, therefore, a show cause notice dated 30.04.1982 was served upon the respondent-plaintiff by the appellant-defendant. When the respondent-plaintiff did not respond to the said show cause notice, once again, a notice was issued on 29.05.1982 to the respondent- plaintiff to deposit the development charges. The respondent- plaintiff did not deposit the amount asked for by the appellant- defendant, therefore, ultimately the allotment was cancelled by the appellant-defendant vide order dated 23.08.1982. The respondent-plaintiff again approached the appellant-defendant for allotment of plot No.E-28 vide letter dated 18.12.1982 assuring the appellant-defendant that he will comply with all the terms and conditions imposed upon him. In pursuance of the application dated 18.12.1982, the respondent-plaintiff deposited the development charges and therefore, the appellant-defendant allotted Plot No.E-26 to the respondent-plaintiff. However, the allotment of Plot No.E-26 was subject to deposition of Rs.2533.35 as interest, since, the respondent-plaintiff failed to comply with the condition of depositing the interest amount, therefore, he was served with a letter dated 15.10.1983 with request to deposit the said amount. The appellant-defendant again informed the respondent-plaintiff for execution of the lease agreement vide letter dated 01.11.1983, but despite repeated communications, the respondent-plaintiff did not deposit the requisite charges. Vide communication dated 01.03.1984, the respondent- plaintiff sought time to deposit second installment of the charges due to the appellant-defendant. Finally, on 23.03.1984, a lease deed was executed between the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff for allotment of Industrial Plot No.E-26 and possession of the same was handed over to the respondent–plaintiff on 01.04.1984. Vide communication dated 01.03.1984, the respondent- plaintiff sought time to deposit second installment of the charges due to the appellant-defendant. Finally, on 23.03.1984, a lease deed was executed between the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff for allotment of Industrial Plot No.E-26 and possession of the same was handed over to the respondent–plaintiff on 01.04.1984. In the lease agreement, a condition was imposed that the respondent-plaintiff shall commence construction of his industry within a period of six months from the date of execution of the lease deed and start the production within a period of 24 months. The respondent-plaintiff did not start the construction work of his industry, therefore, the appellant-defendant issued a letter on 21.04.1984 informing the respondent-plaintiff that he must commence the construction work within the stipulated period. Once again, vide notice dated 08.08.1984, the appellant reiterated the request made by it vide letter dated 21.04.1984. Since, the respondent-plaintiff failed to comply with the correspondences made and also failed to start the construction of his industrial premises, the appellant-defendant cancelled allotment of Plot No.E-26 made in favour of the respondent- plaintiff vide order/letter dated 15.09.1984. The respondent- plaintiff vide his letter dated 05.10.1984 filed an application for extension of time for another six months for complying with the condition mentioned in clause 2(d) of the lease agreement and for furnishing the map and documents relating to the same. The request made by the respondent-plaintiff was rejected by the appellant-defendant vide letter dated 19.10.1984. 4. In these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for claiming an amount of Rs.69, 607/- from the appellant- defendant. In the suit proceedings, after completion of the pleadings, 05 issues were framed. Learned trial court after dealing with the evidence produced before it decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff by passing a degree of Rs.59,607.15 vide its judgment and decree dated 25.07.1990. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that since the respondent-plaintiff failed to comply with the repeated request for depositing the amount due right from 1982 when Plot No.E-28 & E-29 were allotted to him, therefore, the appellant- defendant was well within its right to cancell the lease agreement made in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for Plot No.E-26. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that since the respondent-plaintiff failed to comply with the repeated request for depositing the amount due right from 1982 when Plot No.E-28 & E-29 were allotted to him, therefore, the appellant- defendant was well within its right to cancell the lease agreement made in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for Plot No.E-26. Learned counsel submits that all the due opportunities were granted to the respondent-plaintiff to deposit the amount due to the appellant-defendant, but despite having given opportunity of hearing, he failed to deposit the amount due, therefore, the appellant-defendant has not committed any illegality in cancelling the lease agreement made in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel further submits that there was a specific condition in the lease agreement dated 23.03.1984 effective from 01.04.1984 that the respondent-plaintiff was required to commence the construction of the Industry within a period of six months from the date of execution of the lease deed and since, the respondent-plaintiff failed to start construction activities, he was served with two notices dated 02.04.1984 and 08.08.1984. Since, the respondent-plaintiff did not respond to the above two notices issued by the appellant, the appellant-defendant passed an order on 15.09.1984 whereby the lease agreement was cancelled. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter in a right perspective and has committed error while recording the findings on Issue Nos.1, 2 & 4 against the appellant-defendant. He further submits that since the respondent-plaintiff has not commenced the construction activities for almost five and half months from the date of taking over possession of the leased land, therefore, there was no reason to believe that he would commence the construction activities within a period of fifteen days. Learned counsel submits that the order of cancellation passed by the appellant-defendant was just and proper, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled for any amount deposited by him. Learned counsel submits that since the respondent-plaintiff has failed to obey the condition of raising the construction within a period of six months, the appellant cannot be burdened with the refund of the amount deposited by the respondent-plaintiff. He, therefore, prays that the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant may be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 25.07.1990 passed by District Judge, Bikaner may be quashed and set aside. 6. He, therefore, prays that the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant may be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 25.07.1990 passed by District Judge, Bikaner may be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the learned trial court has considered the entire evidence and has minutely dealt with the submissions made before it while recording the findings on issues No.1, 2 & 4. He submits that pith and substance of the entire case lies in a narrow compass that the lease deed which was executed between the parties on 23.03.1984 was having specific condition at clause 2(d) wherein it was agreed that the appellant-plaintiff shall commence the construction activities of his industry within a period of six months and start the production within a period of 24 months i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.1984. He submits that the period of six months was coming to an end on 01.10.1984 and therefore, termination of lease 15 days prior to the cutoff date was arbitrary and incorrect, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff was well within his right to commence the construction activities of his industry prior to completion of six months and since the period of six months was not over, the appellant-defendant terminated the lease before expiry of that date i.e. 15.09.1984. Learned counsel submits that the findings recorded by the trial court are just and proper, therefore, the same do not call for any interference by this Court. He submits that since termination of lease is dehors the law, the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to claim the amount deposited by him with the appellant-defendant. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through the relevant record of the case. 8. The chronology of facts mentioned above is not disputed by the counsel for the parties. Therefore, it is clear that the lease deed was executed between the parties on 23.03.1984 in pursuance of which, possession of Plot No.E-26 was handed over to the respondent-plaintiff on 01.04.1984. As per clause 2(d) of the lease agreement, the respondent-plaintiff was to commence the construction of Industry within a period of six months and start the production within a period of 24 months. As per clause 2(d) of the lease agreement, the respondent-plaintiff was to commence the construction of Industry within a period of six months and start the production within a period of 24 months. Since, the respondent-plaintiff was not raising the construction despite lapse of period of more than five months, therefore, two notices were issued by the appellant-defendant on 21.04.1984 and 08.08.1984 requesting the respondent-plaintiff to start the construction of industry. Since, the respondent-plaintiff did not start the construction for about five and half months, therefore, the appellant-plaintiff terminated the lease vide order dated 15.09.1984. For complying with the provisions of clause 2(d), the period of six months was to complete on 01.10.1984, however, the appellant-defendant terminated the lease deed on 15.09.1984 on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff failed to start construction of his industry as agreed between the parties. As per clause 2(d), the period of six months was coming to an end on 01.10.1984 and therefore, even if the appellant-defendant would have considered that the respondent-plaintiff has failed to comply with the condition of clause 2(d), the said decision of terminating the lease deed was required to be taken after 01.10.1984. Since, the construction activities were just required to be commenced, therefore, it cannot be pre-empted that since the respondent- plaintiff had not started the construction within a period of five and half months, therefore, he will not start the same before expiry of six months. It was not open for the appellant-defendant to terminate the lease agreement prior to expiry of six months on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff has not commenced the construction of his industry within a period of six months. Since, the period of six months was to expire on 01.10.1984, therefore, the appellant was not justified in terminating the lease agreement on 15.09.1984 on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff has failed to start construction of his industry as agreed between them in the lease deed. The learned trial court has elaborately dealt with all the documents placed before it including the lease deed executed between both the parties. The findings recorded by learned trial court on issue No.1, 2 & 4 are perfectly justified and do not call for any interference by this court. 9. In view of the discussion made above, I find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant is dismissed. The findings recorded by learned trial court on issue No.1, 2 & 4 are perfectly justified and do not call for any interference by this court. 9. In view of the discussion made above, I find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 25.07.1990 passed by District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.84/1986 is upheld. 10. Since, interim order was passed by this court on 30.07.1992 and the respondent- plaintiff had deposited entire amount as directed by this court, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff will be free to withdraw the said amount from the court of District Judge, Bikaner, in accordance with law.