Delhi High Court
Ratinder Nath Abrol vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 16 July, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 11th May, 2026
Pronounced on: 16th July, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 4398/2023 & CM APPL. 55928/2024 (Delay)
RATINDER NATH ABROL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pushkar Sood, Adv.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Tiwari, ASC with Mr.
Anurag Tiwari, Mr. Sahib Patel, Advs.
for NDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeks the following prayers:-
“a. Pass appropriate orders/directions, quashing/ setting aside the
impugned order dated 23.03.2023, passed by the Court of Sh. Dharmesh
Sharma, Principal District & Session Judge, South-District, New Delhi in
PPA No -15 of 2020, titled as Ratinder Nath Abrol vs New Delhi
Municipal Council;
b. Pass appropriate orders/directions, quashing/ setting aside the
impugned order dated 18.8.2020 of the learned Estate Officer passed in
Case No.36/107/08/EO;
c. Pass appropriates orders/ directions calling for the records of PPA No –
15 of 2020, Principal District & Session Judge, South-District, New
Delhi and record of proceedings before the learned Estate Officer,
NDMC m Case No.36/1 07 /08/EO;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 1 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice.”
2. The petitioner is stated to be the original allottee of property bearing
No. G-19, Palika Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, by way of a licence
deed/agreement dated 18.08.1984. The said licence deed was executed
between the petitioner and respondent for a period of five years in favour of
the petitioner for the purpose of running his business. It is the case of the
petitioner that the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 5733/- per month and the
deed/agreement had come into effect on 26.06.1984. The said licence period
was extended in 1989 for a period of five years, i.e., up to 06.07.1994. In
1994, the licence agreement was further renewed with enhancement of 15%,
however, it was renewed @ 25% in the year 1994 w.e.f. 07.07.1994 up to
06.07.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the wrong
enhancement fees, he made a representation to the respondent to carry out
necessary correction. After several rounds of communication and meetings,
with the concerned officer of the respondent, it is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that Chairman of the NDMC had orally and in writing directed the
Assistant Director (Estate) of the respondent to correct the mistake in
previous files vide a letter dated 14.02.2005, whereby the petitioner was
directed to deposit the entire arrears of licence fee calculated @ 15 % per
annum by 28.02.2005. The petitioner, as per his claim, has stated that he had
informed the respondent vide a letter dated 28.02.2005 stating that he had
already deposited the said amount of Rs. 2,48,540/- as per the direction of the
Chairperson, NDMC. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite making
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 2 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
payment of the entire outstanding dues towards the licence fee, the respondent
did not remove the interest component on the outstanding licence fee and kept
on charging interest on the said outstanding amount despite the competent
authority having rectified a mistake of enhancement charge @ 25% per
annum and reducing it to 15% per annum. The respondent thereafter issued a
show cause notice dated 09.10.2006, which was followed by cancellation
notice dated 20.06.2007, whereby the allotment of the shop was cancelled on
account of non-payment of outstanding dues up to April, 2007.
3. Thereafter, the respondent filed an eviction petition against the
petitioner in May, 2008. Vide order dated 18.08.2020, the learned Estate
Officer directed the petitioner to evict the subject property. The said order
was challenged by way of an appeal, under Section 9 of The Public Premises
(Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PP
Act‘). The said appeal was dismissed by learned Principal District & Sessions
Judge, New Delhi, vide impugned order dated 23.03.2023.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted
that the proceedings initiated before the learned Estate Officer under the PP
Act were in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is well settled law, that before
initiating proceeding under the PP Act, prior notice under Section 4 of the
said Act ought to have been issued to the petitioner before initiating
proceedings under the said Act. Attention of this Court was drawn to show
cause notice dated 09.10.2006 issued by the respondent to submit that
respondents had already declared the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 3 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
even before the Estate Officer issued a notice under Section 4 of the PP Act.
Similarly, attention of this Court was drawn to communication dated
20.06.2007, whereby the respondent informed the petitioner about the
cancellation of the allotment and withdrawal of the licence of the subject
property and further stated that the occupation of the said premises after the
aforesaid cancellation is unauthorised and thus, the petitioner was liable to be
evicted from the public premises. It is submitted that, on the basis of such
communication, the respondent preferred the petition under Section 5 and 7 of
the PP Act seeking eviction. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Bhagat
Singh vs. DDA, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)
364/74 dated 28.10.1987 in particular the following portion:-
“It is, indeed, not disputed that it was mandatory requirement of
law that a notice under Section 4 must be served before taking
any proceeding under Section 5 of the Act. Mere fact that the
petitioner assumed that the notice under Section 4 pertained to
the premises in his occupation would not validate the notice if
notice per se is bad. In Amulya Chandra Sutradhar & Another
v. Estate Officer, AIR 1964 Tripura 9(1), a similar question
arose for decision and it was held by the learned Judicial
Commissioner that when proceedings are to be taken under the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1958, the public premises in respect of which action is going to
be taken must be ascertained by the Estate Officer and the first
notice under Section 4(1) must clearly mention in respect of
what public premises the eviction proceedings are being taken.”
5. It is submitted that no notice under Section 4 of the PP Act was given
to the petitioner. Similarly, reliance is placed on judgment rendered in
Ganesh Bai vs. Union of India, 2005 (83) DRJ 1, wherein it has been held
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 4 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
that the Estate Officer is required follow the procedure prescribed under the
PP Act and, therefore, the notice under Section 4 of the said Act has to be
given.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted
that vide letter dated 14.02.2005, the respondent had intimated the petitioner
in the following manner:-
“With reference to the hearing given on 28.01.05 by the Chairperson. I
am directed to inform that you have been permitted to deposit the entire
arrear of licence fee calculated without interest@ 15/- latest by 28th
Feb’05. If the entire arrear of licence fee is cleared by the above
mentioned date, then the issue of interest due will be reconsidered.
However, in case of any outstanding due on account of the principal
amount i.e. arrear of licence fee after the above mentioned date i.e .
28.2.2005 the licence would be cancelled without any further reference.”
7. It is submitted that the petitioner had deposited a cheque of Rs.
1,88,540/- on 21.02.2005, and thereafter, the attention of this Court was
drawn to the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by learned Predecessor Bench of
this Court, whereby the operation of the impugned order was stayed, subject
to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs, which was accordingly
deposited. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the order dated
06.03.2024, NDMC has placed on record provisional statement of account in
respect of subject premises which reads as under:-
“””
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 5 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
”
”
Thereafter, the petitioner placed on record a calculation sheet, as per
which only a sum of Rs. 2,30,194/- was due towards the licence fee,
computed in the following manner:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 6 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
” ”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 7 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
8. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,30,194.00/- was handed over to the
learned counsel for the respondent/New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC),
as recorded in the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Predecessor Bench of
this Court in the present proceedings.
SUBMISSION ON BEHLAF OF THE RESPONDENT
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the
due procedure prescribed under PP Act was duly followed by the Estate
Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner will be in an unauthorised
occupation only upon cancellation of the licence, which was done vide
communication dated 20.06.2007. It was further pointed out that petitioner
never challenged the said cancellation. Attention of this Court was drawn to
notice issued under Section 4 (1) of the PP Act issued to the petitioner on
24.03.2008 by the Estate Officer which reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 8 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 9 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
10. It is pointed out that the said show cause notice was issued only after
the complaint under Section 5 was filed before the learned Estate Officer. It
is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the show
cause notice under Section 4 (1) of the PP Act will only follow after the filing
of the complaint by the respondent under Section 5 of the Act. Attention of
this Court was drawn to the relevant portion of the eviction order dated
18.08.2020 passed by the Estate Officer, which reads as under:-
“18. Therefore, after considering all the facts and submission
made by both the parties, this Court holds that the cancellation of
the license deed vide order dated 18.06.2007 was made in
justified manner and as per the terms and condition of the license
deed. The licence was also expired on 06.07.1999. It is stand
proved that after the cancellation of the shop in question i.e.
18.06.2007, the Respondent has become the unauthorized
occupant of the said public premises and liable to vacate the
handover the peaceful possession of the said public premises to
the Petitioner.
19. Accordingly, Petition filed under Section 5 and 7 of the PP
Act is disposed off with the direction as under:-
(i) Respondent and all other unauthorized occupants shall vacate
the Shop No. G-19, Palika Bhawan R.K. Puram, New Delhi
within a period of 15 days from the date of issue of this order,
failing which the Petitioner will be at liberty to get the property
vacated with reasonable force as may be necessary. (ii)
Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 26,48,799/- as interim amount
calculated upto August, 2017 on account of arrears of licence
fee/damages within a period of 30 days of issuance of this order.
(iii) Petitioner is directed to rectify the Statement of Accounts
upto date or till vacation of the shop in question, strictly as perSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 10 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
the direction of the then Chairperson, NDMC vide order dated
28.01.2005 according to which it was directed to reconsider the
issue of interest due in case the Respondent paid the entire dues.
As per the record the said amount was deposited by the
Respondent. The said revised statement must be supplied to the
Respondent within a period of 30 days of issuance of this order
and in turn Respondent shall pay the difference amount in next
15 days period, failing which, in pursuance of Section-14 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,
1971, I, Murari Lal Sharma Estate Officer, authorize the
Petitioner to proceed to recover the same as arrears of land
revenue in the interest of the Municipal Council.
(iv) Order accordingly. Certified copies of this order be issued to
both the parties free of cost.”
11. Learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the petitioner
had continued in occupation of the shop for 13 years without any valid
contract and, therefore, legal objection regarding the validity of the
proceedings before the learned Estate Officer cannot be accepted.
12. It is further submitted that the aforesaid legal objection regarding the
proceedings before the learned Estate Officer was never raised by the
petitioner in the proceeding under the PP Act, as well as the appeal under
Section 9 of the said Act. It is further submitted that even in the present
petition, these grounds have not been taken. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs.
Nandini J. Shah & Ors. (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 356, to submit
that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the issues of non-compliance of
Section 4/5 of the PP Act. Reliance was further placed on judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 11 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
(2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 524, and in particular, the following
paragraph:-
“7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see
whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its
parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the
record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory
power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does
not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not
permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the
inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to
correct errors of law in the decision.”
13. Respondent has also placed on record a calculation sheet (without
prejudice), according to which the total amount outstanding towards monthly
licence fee is Rs. 41,70,799/- and, after adjusting the amount paid by the
petitioner, the balance amount due, excluding interest is Rs. 31,11,437/- . The
said calculation was handed up in Court and taken on record.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
15. At the outset, Section 4 of the PP Act reads as under:-
“4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.–
[(1) If the estate officer has information that any person is in
unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that he should
be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter
provided a notice in writing within seven working days from the
date of receipt of the information regarding the unauthorized
occupation calling upon the person concerned to show cause why
an order of eviction should not be made.]Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 12 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
[(1A) If the estate officer knows or has reasons to believe that any
person is in unauthorized occupation of the public premises, then,
without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall
forthwith issue a notice in writing calling upon the person
concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be
made.][(1B) Any delay in issuing a notice referred to in sub-sections (1)
and (1A) shall not vitiate the proceedings under this Act.](2) The notice shall:
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed
to be made; and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who
are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public
premises,
(i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before
such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not [later
than] seven days from the date of issue thereof, and
(ii) to appear before the estate officer on the date specified in the
notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in
support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if
such hearing is desired.](3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having
it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the
public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed,
whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to
all persons concerned.”
16. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision demonstrates that if the
learned Estate Officer has information that any person is in unauthorised
occupation of any public premises and from which he should be evicted, the
Estate Officer shall issue a notice in writing in the manner provided in the
said provision under sub-section (2) thereof. It is pertinent to note that
Section 1A also empowers the Estate Officer to issue notice in writing to any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 13 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
person, where he knows or has reasons to believe that any person is in
unauthorised occupation of the public premises. Section 5 of the PP Act
empowers the Estate Officer for eviction of the unauthorised occupants. This
section reads as under:-
“5. Eviction of unauthorized occupants.–[(1) If, after
considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of
a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by him in
support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under
sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4, the
estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in
unauthorized occupation, the estate officer shall make an order of
eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public
premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the
order but not later than fifteen days from the date of the order, by
all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof,
and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or
some other conspicuous part of the public premises:
Provided that every order under this sub-section shall be made
by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour
shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the
date specified in the notice under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(1A), as the case may be, of section 4.](2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of
eviction 3 [on or before the date specified in the said order or
within fifteen days of the date of its publication under sub-section
(1), whichever is later,] the estate officer or any other officer duly
authorized by the estate officer in this behalf 4 [may after the date
so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is
later, evict that person] from, and take possession of, the public
premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be
necessary.
[Provided that if the estate officer is satisfied, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, that there exists any compelling reason which
prevents the person from vacating the premises within fifteen days,
the estate officer may grant another fifteen days from the date of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 14 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
expiry of the order under sub-section (1) to the person to vacate the
premises.]
17. As noted hereinbefore, that the Estate Officer had issued a show cause
dated 30.04.2007 to the petitioner under Section 4 (1) of the PP Act on the
basis of an information by way of an application filed by the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent rightly contended that the information in
terms of Section 4 (1) was given to the Estate Officer by way of such
application and on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated. Insofar
as the aforesaid legal objection with regard to non-issuance of a notice under
Section 4 (1) of the PP Act is concerned, this Court finds that the same is not
tenable as there was a proper notice issued under the said provision,
Consequently, the proceedings initiated before the learned Estate Officer were
in accordance with law.
18. It is also well settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, in such circumstances, is limited in nature.
The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the PP Act has
already been dismissed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge
vide the impugned judgment. The scope of this Court is limited to the extent
that whether the said impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity or is
liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 15 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
19. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as below:
“9. Now, it is a settled legal position that the PP Act is a special
enactment for eviction of ‘unauthorized occupants’ from ‘public
premises’ in a summary manner. As per Section 4 of the Act, a
notice to show cause against the unauthorised occupant of any
public premises is required to be issued by the Ld. Estate Officer.
As per Section 5 of the Act, after considering the cause shown and
evidence, if any produced by the alleged unauthorised occupant, the
Ld. Estate Officer on being satisfied that the person is in
unauthorised occupation of the public premises, an eviction order is
required to be passed by the Ld. Estate Officer, requiring all
persons to vacate the public premises. Unauthorised occupation as
per Section 2(g) of the PP Act means “the occupation by any person
who has entered into occupation of any premises without lawful
authority as well as occupation which was permissive without
lawful authority as well as occupation which was permissive at the
inception but has ceased to be so”. There is no gainsaying that the
PP Act has overriding effect in respect of Government land over
State laws dealing with tenancy rights, such as the DRC Act.
10. In view of the aforesaid provision of law, reverting to the instant
appeal, it is admitted case that the public premises in question i.e.
the shop was allotted to the appellant for five years by virtue of
license deed dated 18.08.1984, initially @ 5733/- per month w.e.f.
07.07.1984. It is also admitted fact that later on license fee/charges
were reduced retrospectively to Rs. 34811- per month by virtue of
supplemental agreement dated 19.01.1993 except that all other
terms and conditions of the license deed 18.08.1984 remained
intact. Clause (1) of the License Deed dated 18.08.1984
categorically stipulated that license was renewable for another five
years subject to increase of rate of license by 15%; and accordingly
it is borne out from the record that the license fee w.e.f. 07.07.1989
was @ Rs. 4003/- per month (Rs. 3481 + 15% equal to Rs. 4003.15
Paisa). Further, as per Clause (1) of the supplemental lease deed
dated 19.01.1993, it was the sole discretion or prerogative of the
Licensor NDMC to extend or to not extend the period of license and
vide Clause (2) of both the first as well as second supplemental
license deed interest @ 15% was liable to be paid on the delayedSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 16 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
license fee.
11. I am afraid the whole plank of the case of the appellant that
license fee was got enhanced by 25% per annum instead of 15% per
annum is ill-conceived, ill-motivated and an attempt to wriggle out
of his liability to pay license fee, which admittedly has not been
paid since 26.06.2007. It is clearly brought out from the record that
pursuant to concession that was afforded by the then Chairman
NDMC leading to issuance of letter dated 28.01.2005, the appellant
was permitted to deposit entire arrears of license fee along-with
interest @ 15% per annum until January-2005 by February 28,
2005. On fulfilling such condition, the concerned officer was
enjoined upon to re-consider the representation by the appellant for
reduction, rebate or concession with regard to interest on the
accumulated arrears. A bare perusal of the order dated 28.01.2005
shows that there was no issue of wrong enhancement of license
fee/charges by 25%.
12. Any how it is also brought out that on being directed, the
appellant paid entire principal amount amounting to Rs. 2,48,540/-
till January-2005 in two instalments of Rs. 60,000/- on 23.02.2005
and Rs. 1,85,540/- on 02.03.2005. Although much mileage is
sought to be drawn from the fact that despite repeated
representations by the appellant and even displeasure recorded by
the Ld. Estate Officer during the inquiry proceeding, the respondent
NDMC failed to produce the corrected/rectified statement of
account, and even during the proceedings in the present appeal, the
respondent/ NDMC cut a sorry figure on that score. Be that as it
may, it is manifest that the after April-2005 even the appellant
failed to pay license fee on regular basis or in a timely manner and
made payment of Rs. 80,000/- on 21.07.2007 and Rs. 20,000/- on
18.09.2007. In other words, the appellant was not even making
payment of principal amount what to talk of interest and it goes
without saying that the appellant too has failed to produce any
statement of account detailing as to how the license fee should have
been calculated, claimed and paid.
13. That being the position, there can be no quarrel that the
license/allotment of the shop was rightly and legally revoked by the
NDMC w.e.f. 18.06.2007 leading to the filing of the application
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 17 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
under Section 5 and 7 of the PP Act before the NDMC for non-
compliance on 24.03.2008. A careful perusal of the original record
of the Ld. Estate Officer would show that notice under Section 4
and 7 of the PP Act was duly served upon the appellant who
appeared initially through his Counsel Mr. S.K. Dewan and also in
person on various dates. It is recorded in the order sheet of
03.10.2022 that the appellant was informed through Sh. Alok
Bhatnagar, Senior Assistant there was due amount of Rs.
10,39,594/- till April-2012 bifurcating Rs. 6,57,698/- as principal
amount and Rs. 3,81,896/- as interest amount and on the request of
the appellant, he was allowed to deposit Rs. 6,57,698/- within seven
days but the said order was not complied with. On 17.08.2017 it
was recorded that the appellant was ready and willing to make
payment of outstanding dues if interest is waived and then the
proceedings continued on multiple dates for supplying of statement
of account which the department miserably failed to do but then at
no stage the appellant had chosen to file his own statement of
account and/or pay the mounting arrears with or without prejudice.
It is fundamental requirement of law that a person who comes to
Court must come with clean hands and this was a stark case where
the appellant was taking the entire department as also the Ld. Estate
Officer for a ride right merely on the basis of earlier concession
dated 28.01.2005. Mr. Nilesh Sawhney, learned Counsel for the
respondent rightly urged that the appellant has been occupying the
premises in an inequitable manner without making payment of
license fee and succeeded in confusing the entire machinery of the
NDMC, which of-course is laughable if not unconscionable.
14. All said and done, the order sheets of the proceedings before the
Ld. Estate Officer would show that right from 03.05.2008 till
28.08.2019 the department came out with a statement that a sum of
Rs. 26,48,799/- had been calculated as outstanding total demand
plus interest up to April-2017. The twist in the story is that although
the corrected statement of account was not filed, the Ld. Estate
Officer on the assurance of the appellant that he was read to make
payment towards the admitted amount of license fee, directed him
to pay a sum of Rs. 14,81,122/- upto April-2017 within a period of
two months vide order dated 28.08.2019 . Even the said order was
not complied with by the appellant, and therefore, it does not lie in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 18 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
his mouth to say that the department failed to produce the corrected
statement of account. At the cost of repetition, it was the appellant
who has been occupying and using the premises all along without
payment of license fee since 26.06.2007. The consistent plea by the
appellant that the license fee has been enhanced by 25% per annum
instead of 15% per annum is also belied from the fact that
enhancement of rent was done by the NDMC vide clause (1) of the
supplemental agreement. Ld. Counsel for the NDMC placed on
record the copy of Resolution No.6 dated 18.03.1999 to the effect
that the Council made a decision that annual enhancement in the
license fee would be @5% as against 7% proposed earlier. Later, a
decision was taken on 30.08.2000 whereby enhancement of license
fee on renewal of the license was resolved to be 10% per year and
also execution of license deed for ten years .It was further decision
of the Council that where the occupiers are failing to pay arrears
and/or interest due thereof for the delayed payment, their licenses
be cancelled and they can be proceeded with under the PP Act.
15. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that
the appellant for more than 30 years has been occupying the
premises in question without making payment of any license
fee. At the cost of repetition, despite affording numerous
opportunities, the appellant did not even make payment of
license fee/charges as per his own understanding without
prejudice or otherwise. The plea that the license fee had been
enhanced by 25% instead of 15% is not only wrong, mis-
conceived and ill-motivated but also contrary to the terms and
conditions of the original license deed dated 18.08.1984 and
supplemental agreement dated 19.01.1993 and policy decision
taken by the NDMC referred above. It is manifest that the Ld.
Estate Officer simply did not apply his mind to the statement of
accounts produced by concerned officials of the NDMC and
merely went by reckless objections raised by the appellant and
now if version of the respondent NDMC is believed, he is in
arrears of rent of Rs. 55,69,809/-.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that there is no
infirmity, perversity or illegality committed by the Ld. Estate
Officer in passing the impugned directions under Section 5 and 7 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 19 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
the PP Act. This Court, therefore, upholds the impugned order
dated 18.08.2020 thereby:
(i) directing the appellant to vacate the shop bearing No. G-19,
Palika Bhavan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi within a period of 15 days
from the date of his order, failing which the NDMC shall be entitled
to get the same vacated as per law.
(ii) Further, this Court upholds the interim amount of license
fee/user charges to the tune of Rs. 26,48,799/- which NDMC shall
be entitled to recover and the appellant is directed to pay towards
arrears up to August-2017 within 30 days from today without
prejudice.
(iii) Further, in so far as period after September-2017 till date is
concerned, the matter is remanded back to the Ld. Estate Officer
with directions that he/she shall seek statement of account from the
NDMC calculating license fee afresh w.e.f. 01.09.2017 plus yearly
enhancement as per market rent prevalent. And/or may consider
other parameters for assessment of damages for period of
unauthorised occupation of the public premises in terms of Rule 8
of the PP Rules and pass an order afresh towards such user
charges/damages for wrongful occupation after affording
opportunity to the parties. The present appeal is disposed of
accordingly.”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. A perusal of the aforesaid observations by the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge reflects that all the facts and contentions raised on behalf
of the petitioner, which has been raised before this Court as well, has been
meticulously dealt with, and a finding has been arrived at to hold that the
petitioner had been occupying the subject premises without making the
payment of licence fee since 20.06.2007. Even the contention raised by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 20 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
learned counsel for the petitioner that the licence fee has been enhanced by
25% instead of 15% per annum has also been considered by observing that
the said plea was contrary to the terms and conditions of the original licence
deed dated 18.08.1984 and supplementary agreement dated 19.01.1993, as
well as the policy decision placed on record by the respondent before the
learned appellate court.
21. In these circumstances, the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge upheld the order of the learned Estate Officer with respect to vacating
the premises and recovery of the interim amount of licence fee/user charges to
the tune of Rs. 26,48,799/- up to August, 2017, however, with regard to
period after September, 2017 till the date of the order, the matter was
remanded back to the learned Estate Officer with a directions that he shall
seek statement of account from the NDMC by calculating licence fee afresh
w.e.f. 01.09.2017 plus yearly enhancement as per market rent prevalent as
noted in para 16 (iii) of the impugned judgment.
22. In these circumstances, this court finds no ground for interference in
the impugned judgment dated 23.03.2023. The impugned judgment is upheld.
The interim order dated 10.04.2023 stood vacated vide order dated 28.10.2025
passed by the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court. The petitioner shall
vacate the subject premises in terms of the directions passed by the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge within a period of 15 days from the date
of this order.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 21 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
23. The matter is further remanded back to the Estate Officer with respect
to directions given by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in
para 16 (iii) of the impugned judgment. Needless to state that the amount
deposited before this Court along with the interest accrued thereupon will be
adjusted in computation by the learned Estate Officer.
24. The petition is dismissed and disposed of.
25. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
26. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JULY 16, 2026/nk/ah
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA W.P.(C) 4398/2023 Page 22 of 22
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
