The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Appellate Officer is bound by the rules and regulations for assessing damages for unauthorized occupation, and overstay by the occupant does not relieve them from liability for damages.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 6th November, 2012 in PPA No.03/2012 (Unique ID No.02401C0290992012) of the Court of District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi exercising powers as an Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)] interfering with the quantum of damages for unauthorized occupation ordered by the Estate Officer and directing payment of damages by the respondent to the petitioner at four times of normal licence fee.

2. Notice of this petition was ordered to be issued and since then the petition is languishing.

3. Today also, the counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter for adjournment, which was refused.

4. The counsels have been heard.

5. The learned District Judge, while interfering with the order of the Estate Officer fixing the damages for unauthorized use, appears to have lost sight of the fact that in discharging functions under Section 9, the learned District Judge was not acting as a Court of law but as an Appellate Officer designated under Section 9 of the PP Act. Reference in this context can be made to N.P. Berry Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 15 (1979) DLT 108 (DB) holding that Appellate Officer under Section 9 is not a Court but a persona designata. In exercise of such powers as an Appellate Officer, the District Judge was bound by the Rules and Regulations of the petitioner Delhi Jal Board qua occupation of premises allotted to employees and qua overstay therein, in the same manner as the Estate Officer was bound. The observations of the District Judge in the impugned order, that the order of imposition of damages for unauthorized occupation was quite harsh, because the wife of the respondent was not drawing HRA from her employer, is not apposite to the jurisdiction which the learned District Judge was exercising. The learned District Judge could have interfered, only if had found that the Estate Officer, while imposing/assessing/computing the damages had not complied with the Rules. The learned District Judge has also not given any reasons or basis for directing damages to be paid at the rate of four times the licence fee. It cannot be lost sight of that rate of licence fee is negligible, considering that the occupation is by virtue of employment.

6. Section 7(2) of the PP Act empowers the Estate Officer to assess damages on account of unauthorised use and occupation “having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed”. Section 7(2A) further empowers the Estate Officer to direct the damages so assessed, to be paid together with compound interest at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of Interest Act, 1978.

7. Section 18 of the PP Act empowers the Central Government to, by Notification in the Official Gazette, make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, inter alia in respect of holding of inquiries under the Act and the manner in which damages for unauthorised occupation may be assessed and the principles which may be taken into account in assessing such damages. In exercise of the said powers, the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules 1971 have been framed and Rule 8 whereunder concerns assessment of damages and is as under:-

“8. Assessment of damages.-In assessing damages for unauthorised use and occupation of any public premises the estate officer shall take into consideration the following matters, namely:-

(a) the purpose and the period for which the public premises were in unauthorised occupation;

(b) the nature, size and standard of the accommodation available in such premises;

(c) the rent that would have been realised if the premises had been let on rent for the period of unauthorised occupation to a private person;

(d) any damage done to the premises during the period of unauthorised occupation;

(e) any other matter relevant for