Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of theconstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction againstthe respondent for restoration of the supply of electricity to shop No. 77. Palikabazar, Connaught Plac" New Delhi, which is stated to have been withheld due tonon-payment of some dues. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner was allotted the shop in question in the year1979 as a licencee on payment of licence fee. In 1980, the respondent initiatedproceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupatns) Act,1971; (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") alleging that the licence stood cancelledand the petitioner was also unauthorised occupant. The Estate Officer through hisorder dated 23/04/1984 held the cancellation of licence to be illegal because ofnon service of notice. Thus the petitioner was to be an unauthorised occupant andliable to pay only licence fee. It is further alleged that there has been a generaldispute between the shopkeepers of Palika Bazar and the Respondent Committee,as regards the rate of licence fee. The petitioner among others filed a writ petitionin this Court, which was dismissed on 16/12/1985, whereafter Specialleave Petition was also preferred in the Supreme Court. While rejecting the Specialleave Petition, it was directed that the respondents will give time to the petitionerto pay up the licence fee, calculated on the basis of agreed rate, in four equal bimonthly instalments commencing from 1/02/1986. It is also pleaded that thesaid order of the Supreme Court was duly complied with and the petitioner has beenpaying the licence fee regularly, in terms of the licence deed. But abruptly on 2 5/06/1993 the respondent disconnected the electric supply to the shop premises. Oninquiry the petitioner learnt that it was due to non-payment of some dues. This acthas been challenged in this writ petition as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to terms ofagreement. ( 3 ) ON 5/07/1993, notice to show cause was issued to the respondents. Onmiscellaneous application, an interim order was passed on 8/07/1993 directingthe respondents to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner at the shop inquestion. It is not disputed that by virtue of the said order the electric supply isavailable to the shop in question. ( 4 ) THE respondent in its counter affidavit has pleaded that licence of thepetitioner was cancelled on 14/05/1979 on account of non-payment of licence feesince he was a regular defaulter. It is not disputed that by virtue of the said order the electric supply isavailable to the shop in question. ( 4 ) THE respondent in its counter affidavit has pleaded that licence of thepetitioner was cancelled on 14/05/1979 on account of non-payment of licence feesince he was a regular defaulter. The licence expired on 25/01/1984. Despitepayment of the licence fee as per the directions of the Supreme Court, the petitioneris still in arrears and thus the respondents were within their right to discontinue theelectric supply to the shop in question as per the terms of the agreement. ( 5 ) AFTER the counter had been filed, the respondents were called upon to placeon record requisite detail of the amounts due. It is not disputed that the balanceamount now claimed to be due to the respondents from the petitioner is the amountof accumulated interest on belated payments of licence fee, which according torespondents is payable by virtue of Clause (2) of the licence deed dated 2 5/01/1979. The petitioner disputes his liability to pay the interest. Even there isa dispute amongst the parties as regards the rate of interest and the amount ofinterest. ( 6 ) AFTER having gone through the pleadings including the other materialplaced on record and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of theview disputed questions of fact arises for determination in this petition, which weare not inclined to decide in this petition, since there is other adequate andefficacious remedy available to the petitioner for adjudication. ( 7 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner pay/deposit the disputed amount, as claimed by the respondent within a period of fourmonths. Such deposit of amount will be without prejudice and subject to therespective rights and contentions of the parties to be decided by a Competent Courton the petitioner s filing a suit as regards his liability to pay interest, rate of interestas also the quantum of interest. It is stated by the learned Counsel for therespondents that in case suit is filed by the petitioner within a period of four monthsfrom today, question of limitation will not be raised and the Court will decide thesame in accordance with law. It is stated by the learned Counsel for therespondents that in case suit is filed by the petitioner within a period of four monthsfrom today, question of limitation will not be raised and the Court will decide thesame in accordance with law. We further direct that subject to the petitioner scontinuing to pay/deposit the amount of the licence fee at the agreed rate month bymonth and subject to the petitioner paying/depositing the disputed amount withina period of four months the electric supply to the premises will not be discontinued. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.