Full Text
LPA 671/2018 &C.M.NO.50685/2018
GIFT CENTRE(KHUSHAL) Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Gupta,Adv.
Through: None.
MARAMZANA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Gupta,Adv.
Through: None
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER o/o 04.12.2018 C.M.No.50686/2018(exemptions)in LPA 671/2018
C.M.No.50690/2018(exemptions)in LPA 672/2018 Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
LPAs No.671/2018 &672/2018
JUDGMENT
1. Seeking exception to an order dated 25^^ September,2018 passed by the WritCourtin W.P.(C)No.4560/2018 and 4768/2018,these appeals have been filed under Clause 10 ofthe Letters Patent Act. The dispute in both the writpetitions was with regard to damages awarded @Rs.500/- per sq.ft. per month by the statutory authority in exercise of the powers available LPAs671&672of2018 Page1of[3]
2. Even though the learned counsel argued that various licensees are paying license fee of Rs.250/- per sq. ft. per month charging Rs.350/- or Rs.370/- per sq. ft. per month from the appellants is unsustainable and discriminatory. However,we find that both,the learned Writ Court and the statutory appellate authority under Section 9 of the PP Act, namely, the District Judge have gone into this question and found that the appellants were aware ofthe date till which they were entitled to occupy the premises, i.e., till 3U'January,2018 and 29'*^ February,2018 respectively. They did not vacate the premises even thereafter and continued to be in unauthorized use and occupation of the property exposing themselves to the liability of payment ofdamages under Section 7 ofthe PP Act. Further finding is that the appellant themselves by various letters consented to pay license fee of Rs.350/- per sq. ft. per month from U'February, 2018. The damages are nothing but mesne profits and a person in wrongful possession of such property is required to pay it. The appellants having already offered the license fee @ Rs.350/- per sq. ft. per month while seeking renewal ofthe license were bound by the same. Further,it wasfound thatthe Central Bank ofIndia which was also functioning in the same premises is paying a sum of LPAs671 & 672of2018 Page2of[3] \ Rs.350/- per sq.ft.per month as license fee.
3. Taking note ofthe totality ofthe circumstances a detailed order has been passed upholding the action of the respondents as modified by the District Judge and we see no reasonto make an indulgence into the matter as the license fee determined by the DistrictJudge and approved by the learned Writ Court are based on the appellant's own offering made and the rate being paid by certain licensees,like Central Bank ofIndia,for the same area and concurrent findings in this regard recorded by the statutory appellate authority and the writ Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal to such an extentthat interference is called for.
4. The appeals are,therefore, dismissed. The pending applications are also disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO,J DECEMBER 04,2018 'anb'