The court emphasized the importance of complying with license terms and the finality of previous judgments in rejecting the petitioner's claim for conversion of the license into a lease deed.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 7th August, 2018 in PPA Appeal No.30150/2016 (CNR No.DLCT01-003396-2016) of the Court of District Judge (Headquarters) acting as an Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)] of dismissal of appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order [dated 27th January, 2016 in PPA Case No.1337/2011] of respondent no.2 Estate officer of respondent no.1 North Delhi Municipal Corporation (Nr.DMC) in exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of the PP Act, of eviction of the petitioner from Hall No.1, MCD Market, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh, Delhi.

2. This petition came up first before this Court on 5th September, 2018 when, in the face of the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.1 NrDMC appearing on advance notice that there were outstanding dues of about Rs.7 crores from the petitioner, the senior counsel for the petitioner, under instructions stated that the petitioner, without prejudice to her rights and contentions, will within a day deposit with the respondent no.1 NrDMC an amount of Rs.1 crore. Awaiting the same, the hearing of the petition was adjourned to today.

3. Today, the senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has deposited the sum of Rs.1 crore with the respondent no.1 NrDMC. The senior counsel for the petitioner has handed over in the Court the deposit receipt dated 6th September, 2018 and which is taken on record.

4. The senior counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

5. It is the case of the petitioner in the petition, that (i) the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, being the predecessor in interest of respondent no.1 NrDMC, issued a public notice dated 26th March, 1997 inviting tenders for allotment of Car-Scooter parking/Shops/Kiosk/Stalls /Dhabas/Office Units, particulars of which were detailed therein, on ‘as is where is’ basis; (ii) the petitioner applied and was vide letter dated 6th October, 1997 informed of acceptance of her tender for Rs.53,020/- per month as licence fee for Hall X10 I, Municipal Market, Karol Bagh for a period of five years on the terms and conditions contained in the tender; (iii) a Licence Deed dated 6th October, 1997 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 NrDMC/its predecessor; (iv) MCD Market, Karol Bagh, Delhi was constructed by the respondent no.1 NrDMC in the year 1976 and consist of 65 shops; (v) though the shops in the market were initially allotted on monthly licence fee basis but later on vide Resolution No.982 dated 5th March, 1979, 99 years leasehold rights were granted to the licensees of the shops and licence of approximately 45 shops were converted into leasehold; (vi) despite aforesaid Notification dated 5th March, 1979, the respondent no.1 NrDMC, in the tender aforesaid, offered the shops on a monthly licence fee basis for a period of 5 years; (vii) the petitioner, prior to the expiry of five years, vide her letter dated 24th April, 2002, applied to the respondent no.1 for conversion of her interest with respect to the aforesaid hall into a lease deed; (viii) the respondent no.1, with mala fide intention did not comply with the said request of the petitioner inspite of repeated requests and reminders of the petitioner; (ix) however, on request of petitioner for renewal of the licence for a further period of five years, the licence was so renewed on 10th February, 2003 for a period of five years subject to 100% increase in licence fee and subsequently a Licence Deed dated 10th February, 2003 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 NrDMC; (x) licensees of other shops in various markets and colonies of respondent no.1 NrDMC were also representing to the respondent no.1 NrDMC for conversion of licences into leasehold and though various officials of the respondent no.1 NrDMC also were in favour of the said proposal, but the respondent no.1 NrDMC did