Parvesh Kumar Malhotra vs New Delhi Municipal Committee
1994 Latest Caselaw 725 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

(1) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction against the respondent for restoration of the supply of electricity to shop No.77. PalikaBazar, Connaught Place" New Delhi, which is stated to have been withheld due to non-payment of some dues.

(2) It is alleged that the petitioner was allotted the shop in question in the year1979 as a licensee on payment of license fee. In 1980, the respondent initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupatns) Act,1971; (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") alleging that the license stood cancelled and the petitioner was also unauthorised occupant. The Estate Officer through his order dated 23/04/1984 held the cancellation of license to be illegal because of non service of notice. Thus the petitioner was to be an unauthorised occupant and liable to pay only license fee. It is further alleged that there has been a general dispute between the shopkeepers of Palika Bazar and the Respondent Committee,as regards the rate of license fee. The petitioner among others filed a writ petition in this Court, which was dismissed on 16/12/1985, where after Special Leave Petition was also preferred in the Supreme Court. While rejecting the Special Leave Petition, it was directed that the respondents will give time to the petitioner to pay up the license fee, calculated on the basis of agreed rate, in four equal bimonthly Installments commencing from 1/02/1986. It is also pleaded that the said order of the Supreme Court was duly complied with and the petitioner has been paying the license fee regularly, in terms of the license deed. But abruptly on 2 5/06/1993 the respondent disconnected the electric supply to the shop premises. On inquiry the petitioner learnt that it was due to non-payment of some dues. This act has been challenged in this writ petition as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to terms ofagreement.

(3) On 5/07/1993, notice to show cause was issued to the respondents. On miscellaneous application, an interim order was passed on 8/07/1993 directing the respondents to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner at the shop inquestion. It is not disputed that by virtue of the said order the electric supply is available to the shop in question.

(4) The respondent in its counter affidavit has pleaded that license of the petitioner was cancelled on 14/05/1979 on account of non-payment of license fee since he was a regular defaulter. The license expired on 25/01/1984. Despite payment of the license fee as per the directions of the Supreme Court, the petitioner is still in arrears and thus the respondents were within their right to discontinue the electric supply to the shop in question as per the terms of the agreement.

(5) After the counter had been filed, the respondents were called upon to place on record requisite detail of the amounts due. It is not disputed that the balance amount now claimed to be due to the respondents from the petitioner is the amount of accumulated interest on belated payments of license fee, which according to respondents is payable by virtue of Clause (2) of the license deed dated 2 5/01/1979. The petitioner disputes his liability to pay the interest. Even there isa dispute amongst the parties as regards the rate of interest and the amount ofinterest.

(6) After having gone through the pleadings including the other material placed on record and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view disputed questions of fact arises for determination in this petition, which we are not inclined to decide in this petition, since there is other adequate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner for adjudication.

(7) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner pay/deposit the disputed amount, as claimed by the respondent within a period of fourmonths. Such deposit of amount will be without prejudice and subject to the respective rights and contentions of the parties to be decided by a Competent Court on the petitioner's filing a suit as regards his liability to pay interest, rate of interest as also the quantum of interest. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in case suit is filed by the petitioner within a period of four months from today, question of limitation will not be raised and the Court will decide the same in accordance with law. We further direct that subject to the petitioner'scontinuing to pay/deposit the amount of the license fee at the agreed rate month by month and subject to the petitioner paying/depositing the disputed amount within a period of four months the electric supply to the premises will not be discontinued.The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.