A licensor is entitled to terminate a license and evict the licensee for non-payment of license fee, provided that the licensee is given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the license should not be terminated.

( 1 ) THE respondent No. 1 had taken on licence office space in what is commonly known as "palika Parking" of Connaught Place, New Delhi, by virtue of a licence deed dated 10th August, 1987. The space which was taken by the respondent No. 1 was 489 sq. feet and the licence fee payable was Rs. 13,335. 00 per month. The licence was for a period of five years and was subject to renewal on such terms and conditions as may be decided by the licensor.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the respondent No. 1 committed default in payment of licence fee. The petitioner then took action in terminating the licence and initiated proceedings under Ss. 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the Estate Officer. On 5th August, 1988 the Estate Officer passed an order directing the respondent No. 1 to vacate. the premises and also pay arrears of licence fee as well as damages and interest.

( 3 ) THE respondent thereupon filed appeals before the Additional District Judge. The main contention which was raised before the Additional District Judge was that no show cause notice was issued under clause 4 of the licence deed before the cancellation of the licence on 18th November, 1987. Because show cause notice was not issued the Additional Distt. Judge came to the conclusion that the eviction orders which were passed were bad in law. The appeals against the eviction and levy of damages were accepted and it is this order which is challenged before us.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a letter dated 9th September, 1987 whereby the respondent No. 1 was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 44,465. 00 by 10th September, 1987 which represented arrears of licence fee for the period ending 31st August, 1987 plus interest thereon. When this money was not deposited a notice dated 5th October, 1987 was issued in which it was stated that the respondent had failed to comply with the aforesaid letter dated 9th September, 1987 and the arrears had not been paid and a further sum of Rs. 13,335 as licence fee for the month of September, 1987 together with interest on the entire arrears had fallen due. In the said letter it was further stated that the respondent was thereby being served with a final notice that if the entire arrears were not deposited within seven days of the receipt of the notice the licensor will be compelled to cancel the licence and action as permitted under the provisions of P. P. E. Act shall be initiated without any further notice or warning. This was followed by yet another letter dated 30th October, 1987 in which it was reiterated that arrears of licence fee had not been paid and in the event of failure to pay the licence fee the NDMC will be constrained to proceed legally without any notice or further warning at the respondent s risk and cost. These notices which were sent to the respondent were before the Additional District Judge but no reference has been made to them in the impugned order of 10th January, 1992. On 18th November, 1987 the cancellation of the licence was made by the Administrator and in the letter of llth January, 1988, which was also before the Additional Distt. Judge, the respondent was informed about the passing of the said orders. According to clause 4 of the licence deed if the licence fee was not paid the licensor was given a right to determine the licence and re-enter the premises in question by giving ten days notice in writing.

( 5 ) IN our opinion, readingofthe aforesaid three letters together viz. , letters dated 9th September, 1987, 5th October, 1987 and 30th October, 1987 leave no manner of doubt that notice regarding arrears and the decision to terminate the licence was given to the respondent before the actual order terminating the licence was passed on 18th November, 1987. The conclusion of the Additional Distt. Judge that no show cause notice was issued was, therefore, not correct. That apart, the order of the Additional