The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners' offers to pay licence fee indicated the profits they were receiving from the unauthorized occupation of the premises, and their failure to pay damages for the last ten years influenced the court's decision.

1. These three petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugn the orders [(i) dated 14th March, 2018 in PPA No.30/2017, (ii) 5th April, 2018 in PPA No.31/2017; and, (iii) 27th April, 2018 in PPA No.209/2016 respectively, all of the Court of District Judge, New Delhi acting as Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971] of dismissal in part of appeals preferred by the petitioners against the orders [dated 24th February, 2010, 2nd March, 2010 and 16th August, 2010 respectively of the Estate Officer of the respondent India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (ITDC) in exercise of powers under Sections 5 and 7 of the PP Act] of eviction of the petitioners from shops No.1, 9 and 21 respectively, Main Shopping Arcade of the Ashok Hotel, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi and of recovery of damage charges at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. ft. per month for each of the shop aforesaid, with effect from 1st February, 2008, 1st March, 2008 and 30th September, 2008 respectively till the date of handing over of actual possession of the premises respectively. The District Judge, in appeal, however reduced the rate of damages to Rs.370/- per sq.ft. per month.

2. All the three petitions were entertained and notice thereof issued.

3. Though there is no interim stay of the orders in either of the three petitions but each of the petitioners undertook to pay to the respondent ITDC, damage charges at the rate of Rs.370/- per sq. ft. per month till the date of possession.

4. Though challenge in these petitions was to both, order of eviction under Section 5 of PP Act as well as order of recovery of damage charges under Section 7 of the PP Act but the challenge to the order of eviction under Section 5 PP Act does not survive. The respondent ITDC, invited bids for licences of the premises in occupation of each of the petitioners and each of the petitioners participated in the said bids and furnished undertakings to this Court that in the event of the bids of the petitioners being not accepted, the petitioners will vacate the premises in their respective occupation within ten days thereof. The said undertakings of the petitioners were accepted and petitioners ordered to be bound therewith. Now, the challenge in these petitions is confined only to the order of recovery of damage charges under Section 7 of the PP Act. The counsels for petitioners confirm. The discussion hereafter shall thus be confined to the said damage charges only.

5. The counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.4560/2018 & 4768/2018 and the counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5778/2018, on enquiry state that the bids have not been opened as yet.

6. The counsel for the respondent ITDC confirms and states that the bids are likely to be opened within a few days and the communication in this regard will be sent to the petitioners.

7. It is not in dispute that (i) the licences of each of the petitioners with respect to the premises in their respective occupation were valid till 31st January, 2008, 29th February, 2008 and 30th October, 2007 respectively and each of the petitioners prior thereto was paying licence charges to the respondent ITDC at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq.ft. per month; (ii) the petitioners, with effect from 1st January, 2010, have voluntarily paid licence fee at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq.ft. per month to the respondent ITDC; (iii) the Estate Officer, in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the PP Act, assessed the damages with effect from 1st February, 2008, 1st March, 2008 and 30th October, 2007 respectively at Rs.500/- per sq.ft. per month; (iv) however the District Judge, in statutory appeals preferred by each of the petitioners, reduced the rate of damage charges from Rs.500/- per sq.ft. per month to Rs.370/- per sq.ft. per month; and, (v) in the bids invited by the respondent ITDC in 2018 and in which the petitioners have participated as aforesaid, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No