- (1.) DELAY condoned. Leave granted.
(2.) THE legality/validity of the judgment and order dated 14. 2. 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, is in question in this appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 8. 2. 1996 passed by the additional District Judge, Delhi acting as the appellate authority, under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short, "the Act") setting aside the order of the Estate Officer dated 6. 4. 1992 directing eviction of appellant herein. Appellant was a licensee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Respondent)in respect of Shop Nos. 48-49, Lodhi road Municipal Market, New Delhi. The period of licence was said to be for a period of five years. The licence fee, according to the respondent was determined at rs. 3,000/- per month per shop. Upon expiry of the period of licence i. e. on 15. 2. 1989, the licence fee was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- for each shop. Appellant refused to pay the said enhanced amount of licence fee. A request for renewal of the period of lease in respect of the said premises allegedly had not been acceded to. On the aforementioned premise, proceeding in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act was initiated before the learned Estate Officer, who, by an order dated 6. 4. 1992, directed eviction of appellant in terms of Section 5 of the Act. In exercise of its power under Section 7 of the said Act the appellant was furthermore directed to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month with effect from 7. 2. 1989 amounting to Rs. 1,14,000/- upto 17. 8. 1990 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Appellate Authority, however, reversed the said decision opining as under : "before E. O. , the M. C. D. had examined only one witness namely Shri Narender Kumar, dealing assistant in its Land and estate Department who admitted in his cross examination that the appellant being a tenant rent cannot be increased. The E. O. has totally ignored the said admission of the witness examined by the MCD. Even otherwise I am of the opinion that the demand of the MCD for 100% increase in the then existing licence fee as a term for renewal of licence is highly unjustified, unreasonable and unconscionable. There was no such clause in the original allotment letter regarding increase of licence fee by 100% after expiry of initial five years of the said licence/lease. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been regularly paying agreed licence fee to the MCD and there is no default on this account. I am of the opinion that the unilateral decision of the MCD to hike the licence fee by 100% cannot be thrusted upon the appellant without giving him an opportunity to proper hearing on this aspect of the matter. "
(3.) RESPONDENT filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which by reason of the impugned judgment, has been allowed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court inter alia opining as under : "it appears to me that in the pleadings before the learned Estate Officer, the MCD had specifically taken a plea in paragraph 8 that vide order dated 8. 1. 1990 the licence stood cancelled and proceedings under the Public Premises Act for realisation of damages and for use and occupation were initiated. Narender Kumar in his examination in chief refers to such a Resolution as also the order dated 8. 1. 1990 cancelling the licence. In cross-examination, this witness has not been confronted with his statement that there was no such order dated 8. 1. 1990, however he has been asked whether there was any justification in increase of rent to which he replied in the negative. It is this statement of Narender Kumar which the appellate Court has sought to rely upon to say that "the increase in rent cannot be insisted upon. " To my mind, such a deduction from the statement of Narender Kumar is not warranted. The original licence was for a period of five years and could be renewed on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon. Since the terms and conditions were not mutually agreed upon, the licence stood terminated by flux of time. That being the position, the learned Estate Officer was well within his right to impose a rate for use and occupation of the premises beyond the period of licence. I am also of the view that the Additional district Judge was not right in condemning the MCD for seeking an increase in the existing licence fee. This is a matter between the contracting parties and it is not for the Court to justify or adjudicate upon its correctness. Consequently, I am of the view that the order dated 8. 2. 1996 is not based on sound reasoning. " Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the judgment of the Appellate Authority being a reasoned one, the high Court acted illegally and without jurisdiction in interfering therewith in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;