IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the finality of the petitioner's status as an unauthorized occupant and upheld the criteria for assessment of damages laid down by NDMC.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral) - The present petition lays challenge to the Judgment dated 29th May, 2018 ("impugned Judgment") passed by District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi, Patiala House Court in an appeal filed on behalf of respondent, New Delhi Municipal Council ("NDMC") under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ("PP Act"), being PPA No. 38/2017. By the impugned Judgment, the learned District and Sessions Judge has directed the petitioner herein to pay damages @ Rs.17,677/- per month w.e.f. 24th January, 2017 for unauthorized occupation of Kiosk situated near Gate No. 6, Palika Bazar, New Delhi-110001 ("Subject Kiosk").

2. At the outset, it is noted that this Court vide Judgment dated 4th July, 2023 in C.M.(M) 650/2018 has already upheld the decision of the Estate Officer and the learned District and Sessions Judge holding the petitioner herein as an unauthorized occupant of the subject kiosk. Appeal by the petitioner, being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16025/2023 against the aforesaid Judgment dated 4th July, 2023, was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 25th August, 2023. Thus, the status of the petitioner as an unauthorized occupant of the subject kiosk w.e.f. 24th January, 2017 has become final.

3. The present case pertains to the issue of damages payable by the petitioner for the unauthorized occupation of the subject kiosk.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, attention of this Court has been drawn to order dated 12th May, 2022 passed in the present proceedings. In the said order, the contention of the petitioner with respect to the NDMC raising bills for damages at the rates decided by the learned Estate Officer was considered. Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is liable to pay damages only @ Rs.17,677/- per month as held by the learned District and Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 29th May, 2018, as opposed to Rs.31,275/- per month, which was held to be payable by the learned Estate Officer in its order dated 20th July, 2017 in Case No. 01/2017/EO.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that payments towards license fee had been made on behalf of the petitioner till October, 2019, which are required to be adjusted by the NDMC towards the amount of damages payable by the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for NDMC submits that NDMC will charge damages from the petitioner in terms of the judgment dated 29th May, 2018 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, whereby damages @ Rs.17,677/- per month has been fixed.

7. Since the petitioner has already been held to be an unauthorized occupant of kiosk situated near Gate No. 6, Palika Bazar, New Delhi-110001, which finding has attained finality in view of order dated 25th August, 2023 passed by Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16025/2023, there is no doubt that the petitioner is liable to pay damages for the said unauthorized occupation.

8. One of the principle grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the District and Sessions Judge had erred in granting damages in favour of the respondent without appreciating that the said provisions would be attracted only after the petitioner is adjudged as an unauthorized occupant in the premises, and her eviction order is confirmed and final. However, in view of the fact that occupation of the petitioner has been held to be unauthorized and the said finding has attained finality, this ground as raised on behalf of the petitioner no longer survives.

9. Even otherwise, the NDMC was well within its jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the petitioner simultaneously under Section 5 of the PP Act for eviction of the petitioner as well as under Section 7 of the PP Act for recovery of damages against the petitioner herein. There is no bar to initiate both the proceedings under Sections 5 and 7 of the PP Act simultaneously against a person who is s