( 1 ). This revision petition challenges the order of an additional District Judge dated 6. 11. 1996 by which he has dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short the Act) and has affirmed the order of the Estate Officer.

( 2 ). Briefly the facts are that petitioner Northern enterprises Corporation Pvt. Ltd. took on license basis from respondent no. 1 NDMC covered area of 1523 sq. ft. on 8th Floor of a multi storeyed building called Mayur bhawan. near Connaught Place. New Delhi for a period 2 years w. e. f. 15. 1. 1981 at the rate of licence fee of rs. 6. 60 per sq. ft. On the expiry of the licence period it was renewed for further period of 5 years w. e. f. 15. 1. 1983 on the increase rate of licence fee of rs. 10. 75 per sq. ft. During the period of said licence the name of the petitioner company was changed from northern Enterprises Corporation Pvt. Ltd. to Northern enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and a fresh certificate of incorporation was issued and the respondent NDMC was informed of this change. In order to meet the requirement of Government Financial Institutions the name of the petitioner company was further changed to northern Enterprises Ltd. and a new certificate of incorporation was issued on 24. 7. 1985 and by letter dated 20. 8. 1985 the respondent was duly informed of this change in the name. But respondent no. 1 took a stand that the terms of the licence agreed to with the northern Enterprises Corporation Pvt. Ltd. would not be applicable to the new company though offered to enter into a fresh agreement with Northern Enterprises Ltd. provided the licence fee, was enhanced to Rs. 17. 84 per sq. ft. from the date of the change in the name i. e. from 24. 7. 1985. The petitioner protested and did not agree. Respondent no. 1 thereupon filed an application under Section 7 of the Act before the Estate Officer for ejectment of the petitioner on the allegation that it was in unauthorised occupation of the premises. Respondent also claimed the enhanced licence fee/damages besides interest @15% per annum on the amount of damages. In reply to the show cause notice the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Estate officer to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the act as the petitioner had not been in unauthorised occupation of the premises and was not liable to pay damages or interest as claimed by respondent no. 1 NDMC. The Estate Officer accepted the contention of the petitioner that the change in the name has not brought about change in the identity of the petitioner licence and that the licence fee was not payable at enhanced rate. He further held that the licence fee at agreed rate was payable upto 14. 1. 1988. He directed the petitioner to pay arrears of damages @17. 84 per sq. ft. from 15. 1. 1988 to the date of the vacation of the premises with interest @15% p. a. on the arrears.

( 3 ). The petitioner challenged this order before the additional District Judge in an appeal. Learned additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Estate Officer. The petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this revision petition impugning the order of the learned Additional district Judge.

( 4 ). Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already vacated the premises on 05. 08. 1989 and has also paid the licence fee. He stated that the petitioner was challenging the order of the learned Additional District Judge by which he had affirmed the order of the Estate Officer awarding interest @15% on the arrears. Referring to provision of sub-Section (2a) of Section 7 of the Act, it is argued that it is clearly stipulated that the interest on the arrears of licence fee/damages etc. may be awarded by the Estate Officer at a rate "prescribed" and the additional District Judge has failed to appreciate that no rate of interest has been prescribed yet under the rules framed thereunder. It wa