The main legal point established in the judgment is the prima facie liability of the Defendant to make payments based on the admitted Licence Deed, and the withdrawal of claims for damages.

( 1 ) I propose to dispose off the present application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 10 for payment of arrears of damages as well as future damages/mesne profits. This application has been filed in a suit for possession and recovery of sundry dues/damages. It is not in controversy that a Licence Deed dated 6. 12. 1998 has been executed by the parties. This Deed records, inter alia, that the Defendant was required to pay the Plaintiff Rs. 10. 000. 00 per month by way of licence fee, alongwith a further sums representing 11 per cent of the gross revenue from the Defendant s sales. The Licence Deed further stipulates that the Defendant was liable to pay proportional property tax, clause 7 of the Licence Deed requires the Defendant to deposit one year s licence fee in advance. This deposit was to be made every 11th month. Clause 10 of the Licence Deed mentions that in case of default of payment of the licence fee interest at the rate of 15 per cent on the outstanding amount would be chargeable. The plaint further discloses that the licence was granted initially for a period of five years. On a renewal, thereafter the licence fee would be enhanced to Rs. 20,000. 00 per month for the subsequent five years. It is averred that the Defendant failed to make payment as agreed to in this Licence Deed. On the date of filing the following sums were claimed to be due: S. No. HEAD OF ACCOUNT amount DUE 1. Licence Fee upto March 1995 rs. 6,80,000. 00 2. Royalty Commission rs. 5,78,764. 34 3. Property Tax as per notice dated 7. 3. 1999 rs. 6,66,709. 00 4. Interest on the outstanding licence Fee @ 15% per annum rs. 3,03,018. 78 5 interest on the outstanding royalty Commission @ 15% per annum rs. 1,84,552. 62 total rs. 24,13. 044. 64

( 2 ) IT is thereafter averred in the plaint that despite oral and written reminders these outstandings were not cleared. The Defendant had instead raised evasive, untenable and irresponsible objections. The plaintiff has also claimed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 21. 75 per cent per annum with quarterly rests. It is pleaded that the Defendant s licence came to an end by efflux of time and also because of continued default in making requisite payments. Although the stand taken in the plaint is that only a licence was created, in para 17 of the plaint it is stated that a legal notice dated 1. 6. 1993 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued terminating the licence. This notice was replied to in terms of letter dated 4. 8. 1993. Mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 21,000. 00 per month with effect from 1. 7. 1993 has thereafter been claimed, aggregating a sum of Rs. 4,41,000. 00.

( 3 ) THE Defendant has filed a written Statement with Counter Claim. The objections raised therein, and repeated in the course of arguments, is that the suit property falls within the definition contained in. Section 2 (e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and therefore, the present suit was not maintainable. It is also submitted that a major part of the claim is time barred. It is then pleaded that no moneys are owed to the plaintiff and in fact they are liable to the Defendant for damages for the breach of the implied contract. The plaintiff s valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee has also been challenged. It is next submitted that between Nov. 1989 to December, 1995 the Plaintiff had held parties on several occasions and hence there was a waiver subsequent to 1. 7. 1993. In para 3 of the Reply on Merits there is a categorical admission to the effect that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. Thereafter there are detailed pleadings which have the effect of negating or varying the terms recorded in the Licence Deed dated 6. 12. 1988. The execution of this Deed is not, however, denied although there is a statement that it has been backdated. There are also detailed pleadings pe