HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.2600 of 2005 Date: August 12, 2010 Between: The National Small Industries Corporation Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise) having its Registered Office at NSIC Bhavan, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi and also Regional Offices among other places at 203, Sri Datta- Sai Complex, Opp: Saptagiri Theater, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad-500 020, rep. by its Sr. Branch Manager Sri V. Argumam, S/o. late Valian, aged about 48 years … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, and 2 others … Respondents Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions to respondents 1 and 2 to release the machinery, viz., WELDON High Frequency PVC plastic-welding machine – Model KBM-1000E (Table Type), in its favour, which is kept in Shop No.B-4/8, MCH Shopping Complex, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. The third respondent herein is a proprietary concern involved in the business of plastic welding etc. For the purpose of running the said business, the third respondent had taken on hire the aforesaid machinery from the petitioner-National Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd by entering into a memorandum of agreement dated 23-09-1985. The business of plastic welding by the third respondent was started in Shop No.B- 4/8, MCH Shopping Complex, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad by taking the same on rent. When the third respondent defaulted in paying amount as agreed in the said agreement, the petitioner proceeded to re-possess the machinery in terms of clause-2 (v) of agreement dated 23- 09-1985. However, the petitioner was not allowed to takeaway the machinery, which is kept inside the shop and possession of it was taken by respondents 1 and 2. It is the case of the petitioner-corporation that as much as it is the owner of the machinery, which is hired to the third respondent and when the third respondent committed default in payment of hire charges as agreed in the agreement, it is entitled to repossess the machinery in terms of the agreement dated 23-09-1985; in spite of the same, respondents 1 and 2 are not releasing the machinery, which is kept in the shop, in its favour. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the shop in question was rented to one Sri B. Anjaiah who is the proprietor of the third respondent-industry. It is stated that he failed to pay monthly rents regularly and is due an amount of Rs.4,930/- as on August, 1991. It is further stated that as the said Anjaiah failed to pay arrears of rent and his whereabouts are not known, allotment of shop has been cancelled by proceedings dated 12-11-1991 and possession of the shop was taken by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad by conducting panchanama. While admitting that the petitioner-corporation addressed letters for possessing the machinery which is inside the shop in question, it is stated that as much as arrears towards rent are due, the petitioner-corporation was not allowed to take possession of the machinery. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. I have perused a copy of the agreement dated 23- 09-1985 entered into by the petitioner with the third respondent. In terms of the said agreement, the petitioner, who is the owner of the machinery, has supplied the said machinery to the third respondent. If there is a default in paying rents by the third respondent, the petitioner-corporation cannot be prevented from taking possession of the machinery, which is lying in the shop let out to the third respondent by respondents 1 and 2. While it is open to respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate steps against third respondent for recovery of arrears, but, at the same time, as the machinery lying in the shop let out to the third respondent belongs to the petitioner and the same is supplied to the third respondent by entering into an agreement, possession of the machinery cannot be rejected to be given to the petitioner-corporation. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, directing respondents 1 and 2 to release the machinery lying in Shop No.B-4/8, MCH Shopping Complex, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, in favour of the petitioner by removing the seal therefrom. It is made clear that respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to initiate steps against the third respondent for recovery of arrears of rent in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 12, 2010 MRR