SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

1. This common judgment will dispose of the present intra court appeals filed by occupants of shops/office spaces in Hotel Ashoka, Hotel Janpath and Hotel Samrat allotted to them by the respondent-India Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ITDC, for short). By the impugned judgment under appeal dated 1st July, 2008, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the action of ITDC to initiate proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short) and for direction to ITDC to renew the license arrangement with them.

2. The appellants herein have been in occupation of shops/office spaces as per details set out in para 4 of the impugned judgment, which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.

3. The case made out by the appellants before us and the learned single Judge was that ITDC has been renewing license deeds from time to time on enhanced license fee after increasing the last paid license fees by 10-30%. It is stated that no uniform policy was/is followed and the license fee of different shops/office spaces was/is different, with substantial variation between the amount being demanded and paid from the allottees. It is stated that ITDC does not have any policy or guidelines for renewal or increase in license fee and is guilty of adhocism and arbitrariness. It is alleged that in 26th August, 2006, ITDC decided not to renew the license though the appellants had already made request for renewal. Thereafter, ITDC decided to renew the license in respect of the shops/office space on enhanced license fee of Rs.250/- per sq. ft. for Hotel Ashoka, Rs.225/- per sq. ft. for Hotel Samrat and Rs.176-220/- per sq.ft. for Hotel Janpath. It is stated that in many cases the increase demanded was 450% higher than the earlier license fee being charged. It is submitted that the increase is arbitrary and ITDC being a State cannot act as a private landlord and demand exorbitant license fee. It is also submitted that in the absence of any policy framed by ITDC, Office memorandum dated 19th February, 1992 and the guidelines dated 30th May, 2002 issued by the Government of India for proceedings under the Act are applicable. It is stated that ITDC has violated the said guidelines/memorandum and therefore their decision to initiate proceedings for eviction and to claim damages under the Act should be quashed and set aside.

4. The relevant Clauses of the terms and conditions of the license deed, which are identical except for the quantum of license fee, read as under:

“2. The license may be renewable at the option of the Licensor on the expiry of the period stipulated under clause 1 and on such terms and conditions as the Licensor may impose in his own discretion. The duration of the extended period shall be determined by the licensor but will not be for more than two years for each such extension. The License will apply for the renewal of his license 6 (six) calendar months before expiry of the license and on failure to do so, the Licensor will be free to negotiate with and to allot the license premises to any other party. It is also clearly understood by and between the parties that the licensor will exercise the sole discretion with regard to the renewal of the license and also the terms and conditions of the renewed license and the Licensor’s decision in this regard shall be final and binding on the Licensee.

3. At the time of each such renewal, the Licensee shall execute a fresh License Deed in respect of the premises given on license to it. In case the Licensee fails to get the license renewed for the period coming into effect from the expiry of this License Deed, the Licensee shall be considered to be in unauthorized occupation of the Licensed Space and the Licensor shall be within its right to initiate proceedings under the due process of law.

4. If any fresh license agreement/