Compliance with Section 4 Notice Requirements under PP Act Validates Summary Eviction for Non-Payment of License Fees.

The Petitioner was the original allottee of Shop No. G-19, Palika Bhawan, New Delhi, via a license deed dated 18.08.1984

The license was renewed periodically until 1999. A dispute arose regarding the enhancement of license fees (15% vs. 25%) and the charging of interest on arrears

Following a show-cause notice in 2006 and a cancellation notice in 2007, the Respondent initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) in 2008

The Estate Officer ordered eviction and payment of arrears on 18.08.2020

This order was upheld by the Principal District & Sessions Judge on 23.03.2023

The Petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court, primarily alleging violation of natural justice due to the lack of a proper Section 4 notice

1. Whether the proceedings before the Estate Officer were vitiated due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 4 of the PP Act

2. Whether the Petitioner’s continued occupation of the premises following the cancellation of the license in 2007 constituted "unauthorised occupation" under the PP Act

3. Whether the impugned appellate order suffered from legal infirmity regarding the calculation of arrears and enhancement of fees

The Court applied Section 4 of the PP Act, which mandates the issuance of a show-cause notice if the Estate Officer has information or reason to believe a person is in "unauthorised occupation"

It relied on Section 2(g) of the PP Act, defining "unauthorised occupation" to include occupation where the authority has ceased to exist

The Court referenced Bhagat Singh v. DDA regarding the mandatory nature of Section 4 notices

Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. to define the limited supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, which precludes re-weighing evidence or correcting errors of law that are not apparent on the face of the record

The Court rejected the Petitioner's contention that no Section 4 notice was issued, noting that the Estate Officer issued the requisite notice on 24.03.2008 upon receiving the Respondent's application

The Court observed that the Petitioner had been in occupation without a valid contract for 13 years and failed to challenge the underlying 2007 cancellation notice

Regarding the fee dispute, the Court agreed with the Appellate Court’s finding that the Petitioner’s claim of 25% enhancement being "wrongful" was contradicted by the supplemental agreement and policy decisions of the NDMC

The Court emphasized that under Article 226/227, it cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine facts already meticulously dealt with by the District Judge, who found the Petitioner had failed to pay even the principal amount of license fees since 2007

It upheld the order directing the Petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days

The Court confirmed the recovery of ₹26,48,799/- as interim arrears up to August 2017

Regarding the period from September 2017 onwards, the matter remains remanded to the Estate Officer to calculate damages based on market rent, with the direction that the ₹12 lakhs previously deposited by the Petitioner in the High Court be adjusted against the final dues