Rashmi Puri v. N.D.M.C.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? % O r d e r 24.1.2011 The appellant Ms. Rashmi Puri assails the judgment and order dated 24th December, 2010 dismissing her Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 17385/2005 upholding the quantum of damages awarded under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 („Act‟, for short).

2. The Estate Officer directed the appellant to pay damages @ Rs.27,773/- per month which is a contractual rate of licence as per the licence deed executed on 9th May, 1997, in respect of Shop No. 55, 2011:DHC:422-DB Shahid Bhagat Singh Place, Gole Market, New Delhi. The said monthly licence fee was fixed on the quotation given by the appellant herself. The appellant had defaulted in the payment of licence fee, hence the respondent cancelled the allotment vide order dated 30.3.1999. The appellant, however, continued to use and occupy the shop and vacated the same only on 30.11.1999. Therefore, the appellant as per the Estate Officer, as upheld in the first appeal and by the learned single judge is required to pay arrears/damages from 30.3.1999 to 8.12.1999 at the rate of contractual licence fee i.e. Rs.27,773/- per month.

3. The contention of the appellant that damages should not have been fixed at the rate of the licence fee as the market licence fee rate was lower, has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. The appellant herself had given a bid and had agreed to pay licence fee @ Rs.27,773/per month in 1997. In case she did not want to pay the said licence fee, nothing prevented her from surrendering possession. It is noticed that the appellant has not paid the agreed amount even after a gap of 10 years. In paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has recorded the stand and offer given by the respondent-NDMC to waive the interest payable on the licence fee and damages. This grants substantial relief to the appellant. The said paragraph reads as follows:- “9. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, since during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent had agreed to waive the interest amount of Rs.5,58,987/- in the event of the petitioner coming forward to pay the entire arrears of the licence fee including the amount of damages on or before 31.12.10, therefore, the said option can still be exercised by the petitioner. If, however, the petitioner does not choose to pay the entire outstanding amount towards the arrears of the license fee and damages on or before 31st December, 2010, then the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the said relaxation by the NDMC with regard to the said waiver of interest.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant is not in a position to pay entire arrears including damages at one go and time may be extended and installments may be fixed. In view of the difficulty explained, the time for payment of the arrears of licence fee and damages without interest is extended upto 31st August, 2011. The entire amount, however, must be paid in seven equal monthly installments and the first installment will be paid on or before 28th February, 2011. The last installment will be accordingly paid on or before 31st August, 2011.

5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE JANUARY 24, 2011 KKB