The court established that municipal licensing fee enhancement for the appellant must adhere to 40%, per Resolution No. 9, rejecting the unauthorized imposition of a 100% increase by the North DMC.

JUDGMENT

% 14.01.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal assails judgment dated 15 July 2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) 4899/2019, $~ The dispute emanates from a license issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, “MCD”, hereinafter, the predecessor- and successor-in-interest of the respondent North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Signature Not Veri 3 f i“etdhe North DMC” hereinafter, consequent on 1 Arti Rani v. North Delhi Municipal Corproation tenders invited by the MCD on 26 March 1997, for operating a shop bearing Hall X-10 I, Municipal Market, Karol Bagh, “the shop”, hereinafter. A License Deed dated 6 October 1997 was executed between the MCD and the appellant, allowing the appellant to run the shop at a monthly license fee of ₹ 53,020/- for a period of 5 years. On 10 February 2003, license was renewed for a further period of 5 years at 100% enhancement of the license fee i.e., at a monthly license fee of ₹ 1,06,040/-.

2. On 28 January 2009, the MCD cancelled the license of the appellant in respect of the shop and further asserted that outstanding dues of ₹ 79,85,994/- were required to be paid by the appellant for the period from 2005 to 2009.

3. Proceedings were also instituted against the appellant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, “PP Act”, hereinafter The proceedings culminated in order dated 27 January 2016 of the Estate Officer, directing eviction of the appellant from the shop. The said order was upheld in appeal by the learned District Judge by order dated 7 August 2018 and, thereafter, by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 10 September 2018 in WP (C) 9334/20186 and by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11 December 2018 in LPA 612/2018, Arti Rani v. NDMC

4. A separate writ petition, being WP (C) 3146/2015, was also 6 Arti Rani v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation instituted by the appellant, which was dismissed by order dated 2 March 2016, and carried in appeal by the appellant in LPA 499/2018.

5. By judgment dated 11 December 2018, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the aforesaid LPAs, holding in conclusion as under:

“Be that as it may, as concluded above, the learned Single Judge was justified in its conclusion, as noted above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders, except noting the submissions made by Mr. Saini and Mr. Datar that the case of the appellants be considered in terms of Circular dated July 22, 2013 and observing that if representations are made by the appellants, the Competent Authority shall consider the same in terms of the Rides, Policies and such other material as deem fit, without being influenced by the fact that the appellants were pursuing the remedy of appeal before this Court. We may clarify that it is for the Competent Authority to take a decision. The appeals are dismissed, except with the aforesaid observations.”

6. The appellant represented yet again on 17 December 2018 to the North DMC seeking de-sealing of her shop, permission to pay pending dues and restoration of occupation. The said representation was rejected by the Land and Estate Department of the North DMC by communication dated 25 April 2019, the concluding paragraph of which reads thus:

“The above said representations has been examined and it has been observed that the possession of the Hall No.1, Mpl. Market, Saraswati Marg, has already been taken over by the North DMC on 09.08.2018 and you have not shown any inclination to deposit the outstanding govt. dues amounting to ₹ 7,01,74,820/- (Seven Crore One Lac Se