M/S. Sagar Video International Vs. N.D.M.C. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india, 1950 - article 226--writ--renewal of lease on existing license fee plus 15%--where it was specifically mentioned in a clause of license that license fee on renewal shall be calculated at the rate of license payable plus 15% or by the percentage as applicable under the policy for the time being in force, ndmc has right to charge an enhanced percentage as per their policy.license fee - rebate--admissibility--if payment is made as required on or before the stipulated date, ndmc shall make available the rebate as applicable to other licensees. - - the writ petition, thereforee, to the extent seeking the relief of enhancement in license fee being confined to 15%, has no merit and is liable to fail.ordermanmohan sarin, j pleadings are complete.1. with the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. petitioner, a licensee of a shop bearing no.6, palika parking opposite regal cinema, new delhi filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondent from disconnecting the supply to electric connection no.169204. petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus with direction to the respondent to renew the lease in respect of the petitioner's shop for further period on the existing license fee within escalation of 15%.3. the controversy in the writ petition revolves around clause-i of the license, which reads as under:'that the license shall be for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 17.8.1991 and thereafter it shall be the entire discretion of the licensor to extend or not to extend the period of license. in case ti is decided y the licensor that the license be renewed/extended it shall be renewed/extended for a further period of 5 years from the day following the date on which the term of the license expires at a license fee calculated at the rate of license fee payable under the present license plus its 15% (or by the percentage as applicable under the policy of the committee for the time being in force) as monthly license fee of the renewed license provided the licensee exercises his option for renewal of license in writing for another term of five years within 60 days before the date of expiry of the present license and the licensee completes all the required formalities for renewal of license within this stipulated period the satisfaction of the licensor, it shall be presumed that the licensee is not interested in further extension/renewal of his license beyond the date of expiry of term of the license and consequently the license shall stand determined ipso-facto with effect from the date of expiry of the term of the present license and in the event of the licensee not suffendering the vacant possession of the shop within the stipulated period under this deed, the licensee shall render himself liable for action for eviction and recovery of damages under the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971.'4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the renewed term, the increase in license fee could only be 15% and not more. the license was initially for the period 17.8.1991 to 17.8.1996 with license fee of rs. 16,076/-p.m. respondents on the expiry of license demanded increase in license fee by 25%. counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the portion of clause-i as produced hereinabove, where the renewal is provided @ 15% or by the percentage as applicable under the policy of the committee for the time being. 5. mr. amit bansal contends that as per the resolution no.49 dated 12.9.1991, license fee was liable to be enhanced by 25%. the court vide an interim order dated 9.9.1996, recorded the petitioner's willingness to pay without prejudice to its rights and contentions, the license fee with the enhancement rate of 25%. it is stated that though the figure mentioned in the said order of the enhanced license fee payable was rs.19,222/- the correct amount of license fee was rs.18,845/-, which the petitioner has continued to pay. 6. in my view clause-i of license deed provides for the initial percentage of enhancement of 15%. it also gives to the respondents the right to charge an enhanced percentage as per their policy, which is what they have done. the writ petition, thereforee, to the extent seeking the relief of enhancement in license fee being confined to 15%, has no merit and is liable to fail. 7. learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage makes a submission that the petitioner has been making the payment of the license fee on time i.e. on or before 10th of each month. hence is entitled to the rebate in terms of clause-3 as applicable. petitioner has undoubtedly received the benefit of rebate for the period 1991-96. the question is the admissibility of rebate for the period 1996 to august 2001. 8. the prayer made by the petitioner is fair and equitable. in case the petitioner has been making the payment as required on or before the stipulated date, the respondent shall make available the rebate as applicable to other licensees in palika parking for the period 1996 onwards as per its policy. learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner would also be entitled and eligible for renewal of license as per the policy. 9. writ petition stands disposed of.

Judgment:
ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J

Pleadings are complete.

1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner, a licensee of a shop bearing No.6, Palika Parking Opposite Regal Cinema, New Delhi filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondent from disconnecting the supply to electric connection No.169204. Petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus with direction to the respondent to renew the lease in respect of the petitioner's shop for further period on the existing license fee within escalation of 15%.

3. The controversy in the writ petition revolves around Clause-I of the license, which reads as under:

'That the license shall be for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 17.8.1991 and thereafter it shall be the entire discretion of the licensor to extend or not to extend the period of license. In case ti is decided y the licensor that the license be renewed/extended it shall be renewed/extended for a further period of 5 years from the day following the date on which the term of the license expires at a license fee calculated at the rate of license fee payable under the present license plus its 15% (or by the percentage as applicable under the policy of the Committee for the time being in force) as monthly license fee of the renewed license provided the licensee exercises his option for renewal of license in writing for another term of five years within 60 days before the date of expiry of the present license and the licensee completes all the required formalities for renewal of license within this stipulated period the satisfaction of the licensor, it shall be presumed that the licensee is not interested in further extension/renewal of his license beyond the date of expiry of term of the license and consequently the license shall stand determined ipso-facto with effect from the date of expiry of the term of the present license and in the event of the licensee not suffendering the vacant possession of the shop within the stipulated period under this deed, the licensee shall render himself liable for action for eviction and recovery of damages under the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the renewed term, the increase in license fee could only be 15% and not more. The license was initially for the period 17.8.1991 to 17.8.1996 with license fee of Rs. 16,076/-p.m. Respondents on the expiry of license demanded increase in license fee by 25%.

Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the portion of Clause-I as produced hereinabove, where the renewal is provided @ 15% or by the percentage as applicable under the policy of the Committee for the time being.

5. Mr. Amit Bansal contends that as per the Resolution No.49 dated 12.9.1991, license fee was liable to be enhanced by 25%. The court vide an interim order dated 9.9.1996, recorded the petitioner's willingness to pay without prejudice to its rights and contentions, the license fee with the enhancement rate of 25%. It is stated that though the figure mentioned in the said order of the enhanced license fee payable was Rs.19,222/- the correct amount of license fee was Rs.18,845/-, which the petitioner has continued to pay.

6. In my view Clause-I of license deed provides for the initial percentage of enhancement of 15%. It also gives to the respondents the right to charge an enhanced percentage as per their policy, which is what they have done. The writ petition, thereforee, to the extent seeking the relief of enhancement in license fee being confined to 15%, has no merit and is liable to fail.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage makes a submission that the petitioner has been making the payment of the license fee on time i.e. on or before 10th of each month. Hence is entitled to the rebate in terms of Clause-3 as applicable. Petitioner has undoubtedly received the benefit of rebate for the period 1991-96. The question is the admissibility of rebate for the period 1996 to August 2001.

8. The prayer made by the petitioner is fair and equitable. In case the petitioner has been making the payment as required on or before the stipulated date, the respondent shall make available the rebate as applicable to other licensees in Palika Parking for the period 1996 onwards as per its policy. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner would also be entitled and eligible for renewal of license as per the policy.

9. Writ petition stands disposed of.