Mis Shri Sai Nath Enterprises & Ors. v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr

1. The appellant No.1 in the two appeals was the highest bidder for two parking sites offered to be taken on license by the ftrst respondent. Completing codal formalities, possession of the two sites was handed over to the appellant. A dispute ensued. Respondent revoked the two licenses and proceeded to take possession of the licensed sites. Matter reached the original side ofthis Court. Posting the suit for further proceedings, interim injunction prayed for has been denied and this means that the respondent No.1 can resume possession ofthe licensed sites.

2. The two appeals were listed before this Bench for admission on February 19, 2016. The respondent appeared through counsel. Mr.U.C.Bhardwaj, Additional Deputy Commissioner (RP Cell) ofthe North Delhi Municipal Corporation was also present in Court with the original record which was seen by us.

3. Recording no comment being offered by the Court at this stage (. hearing was deferred to enable learned senior counsel for North Delhi....., Municipal Corporation to have a consultation with his client. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time. The purpose was to see whether an interim solution could be found pending adjudication ofthe main dispute between the parties in the suit, which concerns appellant's claim for remission in terms ofthe two license deeds executed as also enhancement of the license fee by four times. The appellant was willing to pay the license fee enhanced with effect from November 01, 2014. FAO (OS) Comm.Nos.2/2016 & 312016

4. The reason for an interim solution was that the term of two years under which the two parking sites (one subject matter in each suit) was to come to an end on June 28, 2016.

5. Save and except small elements, parties have been able to agree to an interim solution and the appeals can be disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated February 09, 2016 in the two suits and disposing of applications filed for interim injunction being IA No.243/2016 and L\ No.247/2016, pending disposal ofthe suit on merits. Therefore we note the contents ofthe agreement:­ "-.'..

(i) It is agreed that the appellant would retain the right to put to use the two licensed sites till June 28, 2016; user being for the periods as per the license agreement.

(ii) The appellant would pay the arrears @ ofthe license fee paid by the appellant, which parties want it clarified would be twice the amount of original license fee as was hitherto fore being paid. As per the respondent the arrears upto February 29, 2016 are ~4,21,29,618/- (Rupees Four Crores Twenty One Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Eighteen only).

(iii) Paying the amount in terms of clause (ii) above, within the time as \ '" '" would be directed by us inasmuch as on the time there is no settlement between the parties, if the appellant is able to give proof of payments made but not taken into account by the respondent while computing the demand of ~4,21,29,618/-. for the user charges payable for the month of March onwards, the respondent would revise the demand entitling appellant to adjust the same for the future period.

(iv) Payment for the month of March which would otherwise be payable on or before March OS, 2016 shall be deferred requiring the respondent No.1 FAO (OS) Comm.Nos.212016 & 312016 Page30f[5] to decide the claim of remission on or before March 15, 2016. Such remission which is accepted would be adjusted from the amount payable for the month of March, 2016 and the payment for the month of March, 2016 would be paid by March 25,2016, by which date the respondent would also reconcile its account and adjust the demand by giving credit of such amount received but not credited for in the account ofthe appellant. Ifthe remission granted exceeds the charges payable for the month of March, 2016, the appellant would be entitled to adjust the same from the amount payable towards arrears.,

(v) Charges for the months of April, May and June would be paid \ adjusting proportionately the advanced license fee paid by way of security, k which as per the term of the license fee was a deposit of the then payable monthly license fee equal to three months license fee.

(vi) Possession of the licensed sites would be punctually handed over by the appellant to the respondent No.1 on June 29, 2016 when respondent No.1 would simultaneously hand over the bank guarantees to the appellant.

(vii) The respondent No.1 would be permitted to initiate steps for auction ofthe two parking sites.

6. Settlement on two issues has eluded the parties. The first is the claim of the respondent No.1 for interest in sum of fI[5],35,026/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Thirty Five Thousand and Twenty Six only) for the arrears of license fee as claim of the respondent No.1 and the second is the date by which arrears have to be cleared by the appellant in terms of the present consent order.

7. Keeping in view the span of the main settlement the two issues are trivial and need not hold up the settlement between the parties. FAO (OS) Comm.Nos.2/2016 & 3/2016 Page4of[5]

8. The claim for interest could be decided in the suit filed by the appellants and thus for the purposes of the interim order, at this stage no interest would be payable.