JUDGMENT The petitioner has challenged proceedings initiated by the India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (ITOC) before the Estate Officer for realisation of arrears of licence fee and other charges. The petitioner No. 1 which is a company entered into an agreement on 22nd June 1992 with ITDC by which portions of the Hotel Airport Ashoka were given on licence to the company subject to diverse terms and conditions contained in the agreement. 2. Disputes arose between the parties with regard to the performance of the respective obligations under the agreement. The company instituted a Title Suit against ITDC for inter alia a declaration that two cheques given by the company to ITDC for Rs. 2,40,000/-and Rs. 2,00,000/- had not matured and for cancellation of three cheques dated 31.8.93, 30.11.93 and 28.2.94 Rs. 2 lakhs each, for damages and for a declaration that of the company's right to continue in possession of the licence premises and for an injunction restraining ITDC from disturbing the company's possession in respect of the licence premises. A revisional application was filed by ITDC before the High Court from such interim order. The revision application was disposed of by consent of the parties on 20th May 1994. Under the consent order the company agreed to surrender its rights in respect of the licensed premises and hand over possession of the same to ITDC on 31st May 1994. The order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties ill respect of the premises. 3. In August 1995 ITDC initiated the impugned proceedings against the company. A notice dated 5th September 1995 to show cause under s. 7 of the Public Premises (Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was served on the company by the Estate Officer. The matter was taken up from time to time by the Estate Officer. An objection was filed on 20th September 1995 by the company in the proceedings. On 16th March 1996 an order was passed rejecting the company's initial plea that the proceeding before the Estate Officer was not maintainable by reason of the pendency of the Civil Suit. The matter was thereafter fixed for hearing on 22nd June 1996. 4. This application was filed on 31st July 1996. On 16th March 1996 an order was passed rejecting the company's initial plea that the proceeding before the Estate Officer was not maintainable by reason of the pendency of the Civil Suit. The matter was thereafter fixed for hearing on 22nd June 1996. 4. This application was filed on 31st July 1996. An interim order was passed allowing the proceedings before the respondent No.1 to continue but the final order was not to be given effect to Directions were given for filing of affidavits. Affidavits have since been filed. 5. The first point raised by the writ petitioners is that the proceedings under s. 7 of the Act were without jurisdiction as s. 7 only pertains to persons in unauthorised occupation of the premises. It is claimed that the petitioners are no longer in occupation of the premises and when the petitioners were in occupation of the licensed premises they were authorised to do so and the claim of ITDC related to the period during which the writ petitioners were in lawful occupation. As such the proceedings under the Act were incompetent. Reliance has been placed on s. 2(g) of the Act as well as in the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 855, 874 para 40. 6. The second submission of the petitioner is that ITDC can claim the amount of arrears of license fee by way of counter-claim in the pending suit. 7. The respondent has submitted that the application is not maintainable on the ground that necessary parties viz. the Government of India and the State Government were not before this Court. It is submitted that Clause 37 of the Agreement between the parties clearly shows that the premises were public premises and the ITDC was entitled to take action under the Act to recover its dues. It is further submitted that the proceedings were well within the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 under s. 7(1) of the Act. In any event, it is submitted that the writ petitioner having defaulted in making payment of licence fee during the period of its occupation was in fact in unauthorised occupation from the date of default. It is further submitted that the proceedings were well within the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 under s. 7(1) of the Act. In any event, it is submitted that the writ petitioner having defaulted in making payment of licence fee during the period of its occupation was in fact in unauthorised occupation from the date of default. It is submitted that the cheques which had been given by the petitioners in favour of ITDC and in respect of which the Title Suit was filed had been dishonoured by non-payment and as such criminal proceedings under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act had already been initiated against the petitioners. 8. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was enacted not only to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises but also for certain incidental matters. It applies to premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of inter alia any company as defined in s. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than 51 per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government [so 2(e)). This would include the ITDC. 9. Section 7 of the Act provides for the power to recover rent or damages in respect of public premises and reads as follows: "(1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (2) Where any person is or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment to damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (2A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978. (2A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978. (3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue for a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice why such order should not be made, and until his objections if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer." 10. The section covers both situation whether it is a claim only for arrears of rent or damages from unauthorised occupants. In the first situation covered by s. 7(1) the person is not described as being in unauthorised occupation. Therefore rent may be recovered from a person under s. 7(1) who is not in unauthorised occupation. Clearly if a person is in unauthorised occupation there is no question of recovery of rent from him. The second situation is covered by s. 7(2) which deals with the recovery of damages from a person in unauthorised occupation. 11. The agreement between the parties provides for payment of annual licence fee at graduated scales namely,- (a) for the first year Rs. 7.00 lacs (b) for the second year Rs. 8.00 lacs (c) for the third year Rs. 9.50 lacs (d) for the fourth year Rs. 12.00 lacs (e) for the fifth year Rs. 15.50 lacs Rs. 52.00 lacs 12. In addition the company was required to pay Rs. 2.40 lacs per annum being advance for the Swimming pool. The company was also required to pay taxes payable to the Government such as expenditure tax. The claim of ITDC before the respondent No. 1 is' for these amounts under the agreement. 13. The only other requirement for s. 7(1) to apply is that the premises in respect of which the claim is made must be public premises within the meaning of the Act. There is no dispute that the licensed premises within this definition. The claim of ITDC before the respondent No. 1 is' for these amounts under the agreement. 13. The only other requirement for s. 7(1) to apply is that the premises in respect of which the claim is made must be public premises within the meaning of the Act. There is no dispute that the licensed premises within this definition. In fact Clause 37 of the agreement provides: "(37) The premises shall be deemed to be public premises as defined in the Public Premises (Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and amended from time to time and its provision shall apply on the premises including the portion of the Mezzanine and ground floor under occupation of the licensee." 14. It is to be emphasised that Clause 37 of the licence agreement clarifies that the Act would apply in respect of the premises under the occupation of the licensee. 15. The decision in Ashoke Marketing vs. Punjab National Bank AIR 1991 SC 855 cited by the writ petitioners was only concerned with the question whether a person who was inducted as a tenant in premises which are public premises within the meaning of the Act and whose tenancy has expired or has been terminated, can be evicted from the premises under the provisions of the Act and whether such a person can invoke the provisions of the Rent Control Act. In other words, the issue was whether the provisions of the Act overrode the provisions of the Rent Act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments. The Supreme Court decided the issue in the affirmative. That question has no application in this case. 16. The passage relied upon by the petitioners to contend that the Act has no application when a person is not in unauthorised occupation of the premises is at page 874 of the report and reads: "The provisions of the Public Premises Act are applicable to Public Premises in occupation of a person having no authority for such occupation... ............... ..." 17. The passage has been misconstrued by the writ petitioners. It does not mean that none of the provisions apply to a situation where a person is in occupation of public premises during the continuation of the tenancy. The passage does not exhaust the ambit of the Act. It does not say that the Act only applies when a person is in unauthorised occupation. It does not mean that none of the provisions apply to a situation where a person is in occupation of public premises during the continuation of the tenancy. The passage does not exhaust the ambit of the Act. It does not say that the Act only applies when a person is in unauthorised occupation. The Supreme Court make the observation in connection with and for the purpose of determination of the particular issue raised in that case. 18. Thus the claim raised by ITDC under s. 7 was competent and the respondent No. 1 has the jurisdiction to determine it. 19. The second submission of the writ petitioners is also without substance. ITDC has not raised any counter-claim in the suit filed by the company nor indeed can it do so. By virtue of s. 15(d) the licensor cannot recover rent by way of a suit and is compelled to recover the same only under the provisions of s. 7 and in the manner specified therein Section 15(d) of the Act specifically prohibits any Civil Court from entertaining any such claim. 20. No other point having been raised by the writ petitioner. The writ application is dismissed without any order as to costs and all interim orders are vacated. Writ application dismissed.