V.K. Jain, J.—

1. Shop No.7, Kalyan Vas, Delhi was allotted to Shri Arjun Das Khattar for running a vegetable shop on payment of license fee of Rs.450/- per month. He was later allowed to include one Mr. P.S. Oberoi as his business partner. On dissolution of partnership between Mr. Arjun Das Khattar and Mr. P.S. Oberoi, the aforesaid shop came to be occupied solely by Mr. P.S. Oberoi. At this request, Mr. P.S. Oberoi was permitted to use the additional area measuring 204 sq. mtrs on the rear side of the Shop on payment of license fee fo Rs.321/- per month for the purpose of storage and cleaning of wheat. At the request made by Mr. P.S. Oberoi, he was permitted to include respondent Mr. Mool Chand Sharma as his partner in his business. Mr. P.S. Oberoi later left the said partnership business after executing a Power of Attorney in favour of respondent Mr. Mool Chand Sharma. In the year 1995, three semi-permanent shops and one tin shed were constructed by Mr. P.S. Oberoi behind shop no.7, Kalyan Vas, Delhi which was initially allotted to Shri Arjun Das Khattar. Vide letter dated 10.4.1997, Under Secretary (Allotment), Land & Building Department wrote to SSW-I, MSO Building, New Delhi to fix the license fee of the aforesaid three shops and a shed. In the letter it was stated that the aforesaid shop and shed had been allotted to Mr. Mool Chand Sharma and Mr. P.S. Oberoi. A copy of the aforesaid communication was endorsed to the respondent Mr. Mool Chand Sharma, though no letter of allotment was issued to him. In reply to the letter dated 10.4.1997, SSW-I intimated the license fee, but also stated that the license fee would be fixed by calling tender as per the procedure laid down by the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi.

Mr. Mool Chand Sharma filed W.P(C) No.4306/2000, seeking implementation of the letter dated 10.4.1997 by handing over possession of the aforesaid three shops and tin shed to him. He also sought declaration that he was the lawful licensee in respect of the aforesaid three shops and one shed constructed behind the shop no.7, Kalyan Vas, Delhi.

2. Vide order dated 9.10.2002, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition after recording statement of the counsel that there was no document cancelling the said allotment. A writ of mandamus was issued directing the appellants to implement the letter dated 10.4.1997. The appellants filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 9.10.2002. The appeal was withdrawn on 10.1.2003 with liberty to file a review application before the learned Single Judge. Vide order dated 3.11.2006, the learned Single Judge dismissed the review application and directed implementation of the letter dated 10.4.1997. During the course of hearing of the review application, the learned counsel for the respondents gave a concession whereby the respondent gave up his claim in respect of two out of the three shops in question, in case one shop was allotted to him. He also offered to pay the license fee at the market rate. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the review petition, directed that in case the appellants implement the letter dated 10.4.1997 to the extent of allotting and giving possession of one semi-permanent and tin shed to the respondent within one month at the license fee at market rate, the respondent would abide by his earlier offer to forego the claim in respect of the remaining two semi-permanent structure shops as per the allotment letter. He further directed that if the appellants fail to allot one semi-permanent shop and one tin shed to the respondent, the writ of mandamus as ordered was issued and the respondent shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits that ensue. The present appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 9.10.2002 as well as the order dated 3.11.2006.

3. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the earlier appeal against the order d