A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) IN all these petitions, the petitioners were leased out industrial sheds by the respondent no. 1/delhi State Industrial Development corporation Ltd. (DSIDC ). Initially they were on monthly rent and the Lease/licenses were for specified periods. Thereafter the lt. Governor, Delhi passed an order dated 9. 3. 1977 as per which such sheds were to be sold to the entrepreneurs on hire purchase and no profit no loss basis. Ail these petitioners did not opt for this scheme. Eviction proceedings were initiated against them under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorisedoccupants) act,1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and eviction orders passed. These petitioners preferred appeals against eviction orders before Additional District Judge, Delhi. Their appeals also stand dismissed. Although the judgments are different in each case, having regard to the position that facts are almost similar, the substance and tenor of these judgments are also the same. These writ petitions are filed challenging those orders and the thrust of these writ petitions is also almost identical. These writ petitions were, therefore, heard together. Ch/p. No. 3809/2001 and CWP. No. 3368/2001. ( 2 ) IN CWP. No. 3809/2001, lease deed dated 10. 3. 76 was executed in respect of shed no. F-29, ad measuring 1200 sq. fit at DSIDC industrial Complex, Rohtak Road, Delhi at monthly rent of Rs. 1310/ -. Period of the lease was three years. As mentioned above, on 9. 3. 1977 Lt. Governor of Delhi passed an order that DSIDC sheds in Delhi would be sold to the entrepreneurs on hire purchase basis. It was also directed that the price of the shed would be determined after proper evaluation by a body comprising of government representatives and the representatives of the entrepreneurs. This resulted into issuance of Circular dated 15. 3. 1977 by the DSIDC whereby the petitioner was informed that it had been decided to make available the above shed to her under the Scheme on Hire Purchase basis. Many persons opted to purchase the sheds leased out to them under the Scheme. However, certain other persons which include the petitioners, did not respond to the offer. Between 1986 to 1989, four hire purchase offers were made to the allottees, including the petitioners, stating the cost of shed. Many persons opted to purchase the sheds leased out to them under the Scheme. However, certain other persons which include the petitioners, did not respond to the offer. Between 1986 to 1989, four hire purchase offers were made to the allottees, including the petitioners, stating the cost of shed. The petitioner opted not to avail of this scheme allegedly on the ground that the cost of the shed was much higher. It may be mentioned that reason for granting repeated opportunities to the allottees to avail the hire purchase scheme was the litigation which ensued after the fixation of the price of these sheds and the Division Bench in the case of pushplata Vs. DSIDC Ltd. 61 (1996) DLT 818 directed grant of final opportunity to all such persons. Details in this respect would be stated at appropriate stage. Suffice is to state that as the petitioner did not avail of even the said final opportunity, and as period of lease had expired which was not renewed, DSIDC treated the petitioners as unauthorised occupants of the sheds. Accordingly, notice under Section 4 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and eviction proceedings initiated which culminated into eviction order dated 7. 2. 2001. In the said order, the Estate Officer has stated that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the leased premises within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Act as she continued to occupy the public premises alter the expiry of period of lease and the period was not extended by the DSIDC. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner challenged the order dated 7. 2. 2001 on the ground that the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte illegally and objections of the petitioner were not decided by the Estate Officer. It may be mentioned here that for continued alleged unauthorised occupation, the petitioner was also served with notice under Section 7 of the Act to recover the damages. In this case also the petitioner was proceeded against exparte and ultimately order dated 27. 2. 2001 was passed by the Estate Officer holding that the petitioner was liable to pay arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs. 3,32,965/- as on 28. 2. 1990 with 6% interest on the outstanding dues plus damages payable at the rate of Rs,1310/- per month w. e. f. 01. 03. 2. 2001 was passed by the Estate Officer holding that the petitioner was liable to pay arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs. 3,32,965/- as on 28. 2. 1990 with 6% interest on the outstanding dues plus damages payable at the rate of Rs,1310/- per month w. e. f. 01. 03. 1990 and any subsequent increase made in damages by the DSIDC in respect of public premises from time to time with interest. The petitioner was allowed to adjust the amount which she had paid from time to time. Against this order also the petitioner preferred appeal before Additional District judge. Both these appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgments dated 14. 4. 2001. CWP. No. 3809/ 2001 is preferred against the order of eviction and CWP. No. 3368/2001 is preferred against imposition of damages. ( 3 ) THE petitioner became unauthorised occupant of the premises in question is apparent from the facts of the case noted above. It is an admitted case that the built-up shed was allotted to the petitioner by respondent no. 1 on monthly lease deed dated 10. 3. 1976 for a period of three years at a monthly rent of Rs. 1310/~. The lease was expired on 9. 3. 1979 by of time. This lease was neither extended nor renewed. It also stands admitted that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to take the premises on hire Purchase basis or outright sales basis by making cash down payment of the cost of the shed. ( 4 ) THE matter was considered by this Court in the case of DSIDC Vs. Chander Prakash and another reported in 1994 1 AD Delhi 377. It was held that the premises, as per the terms of lease deed had been let out to different allottees and the same belong to the dsidc. Shed which had been constructed on the land was leased by the Government to it. This Court also clarified that the position in law is that if the premises are sold on Hire purchase basis then the transfer takes place only after the instalments are paid. The Court also observed that once the allotment is wildly determined the provisions of PP Act could be invoked. This Court also clarified that the position in law is that if the premises are sold on Hire purchase basis then the transfer takes place only after the instalments are paid. The Court also observed that once the allotment is wildly determined the provisions of PP Act could be invoked. As pointed out above, in the instant case the lease which was monthly lease came to an end by of time and the petitioner did not opt for taking the premises on Hire purchase basis, The petitioner, therefore, became unauthorised occupant, and thus initiating action for eviction under the provisions of PP Act or for damages for continued unauthorised occupation of the petitioner in the said premises cannot be said to be illegal. ( 5 ) IN fact, as mentioned above, learned counsel for the petitioner did not seriously dispute the aforesaid position. He tried to contend that the petitioner was not offered sufficient opportunity by the Estate Officer to defend the case. This contention is negatived by the learned Additional District judge by making the following observations: "as far as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not offered -sufficient opportunity of being heard, is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the appellant responded to the show cause notice and was represented by his counsel Ms. Savita rastogi on various hearings and thereafter Shri M. M. Kalra, Advocate also appeared before the Estate Officer. Even the reply to the show cause notice was filed and the witnesses examined by the respondent were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. This therefore, shows that the appellant had been quite active in contesting the proceedings before the Estate officer and it is in the last fag end of the enquiry that the appellant did not appear before the Estate officer. The record also shows that the impugned order was passed on 7. 2. 2001 and Shri m. M. Kalra, Ld. Counsel for the appellant lastly Appeared on 20. 12. 99 when he submitted before the Estate Officer that the appellant wanted to deposit a cheque of Rs. 10,000/ -. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant was not given any opportunity of being heard. 2. 2001 and Shri m. M. Kalra, Ld. Counsel for the appellant lastly Appeared on 20. 12. 99 when he submitted before the Estate Officer that the appellant wanted to deposit a cheque of Rs. 10,000/ -. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant was not given any opportunity of being heard. " ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel contested the aforesaid findings in the impugned order by contending that the petitioner had appointed one Shri m. K. Narula, her attorney for conducting the cases who could not appear before the Estate officer on 17. 10. 2000 when the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. However, attorney thereafter went to the Court of Estate Officer and was informed that the hearing had been adjourned to 2-11-2000 and then to 22-11- 2000 and 11-12-2000 but was not permitted to make further payment of the instalments as suggested and ex-parte order dated 7. 2. 2001 was passed without considering and deciding the objections of the petitioner on record. However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the petitioner had contested the case throughout and it was at the fag end of the enquiry that her attorney did not appear before the Estate officer. I had summoned the record and a perusal thereof confirms that the observations made by learned Additional District Judge and quoted above are based on record. The merits of the case had already been argued and on 20. 12. 1999 when attorney of the petitioner lastly appeared, he only wanted to deposit a cheque of Rs. 10,000/ -. In fact as far as case on merits is concerned, proceedings had been concluded and even as per petitioner s own showing, she wanted to make some further payment which was allegedly not allowed. The learned Additional district Judge, therefore, was right in concluding that the petitioner s contention had no merit that she was not given any opportunity of being heard. Therefore, it cannot besaid that there is any infirmity in the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer or for that matter in the appellate order dismissing the appeal. ( 7 ) INSOFAR as damages are concerned, the same are assessed as under: " (A) Arrears of rent and damages rs. 3,32,865. 80as on 28. 2. 90 with 6% interest onthe outstanding dues till the final payment is made. (b) Plus damages payable @ Rs. ( 7 ) INSOFAR as damages are concerned, the same are assessed as under: " (A) Arrears of rent and damages rs. 3,32,865. 80as on 28. 2. 90 with 6% interest onthe outstanding dues till the final payment is made. (b) Plus damages payable @ Rs. l310/-per month w. e. f. 1. 3. 1990 and anysubsequent increase made in damages by the petitioner in respect of the public premises from time to timewith interest. (c ) Less amount paid by therespondent to the petitioner fromtime to time. " ( 8 ) A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the amount is calculated at the rate of Rs. 1310 per month. The rate of rent and at the same rate damages are also awarded. The petitioner is given the adjustment of the amount already paid. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that awarding of arrears of rent at the rate of rs. 1310/- or damages at the same rate is illegal. In fact the respondents could even charge market rent for unauthorised occupation which is not done in the instant case. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs. 8,62,000/- up to now. In fact damages which are assessed are only up to 28. 2. 1990 with 6% interest on the outstanding amount dues. As per the calculation of the respondents the amount payable is much more than the amount deposited. The petitioner shall be given the adjustment of the amount already paid. ( 10 ) WITH these observations, both the writ petitions are dismissed. ( 11 ) NO costs. CWP. No. 1271/20qo and CWP. No. 1272/2000. ( 12 ) BASIC facts, which are on the same lines as in CWP. No. 3809/001, are not in dispute. In CWP. No. 1271/2000 also lease was expired by efflux of time and the petitioner had not opted for Hire Purchase Scheme announced by the respondents. Eviction proceedings were initiated under the PP Act and the eviction order was passed. The petitioner filed appeal there against under Section 9 of the act which was also dismissed in default on 19. 10. 1992. Interestingly the petitioner neither got the said appeal revived or pursued the matter any further and accepted the position. Order of dismissing the appeal on 19. 10. 1992, therefore, find finality. The petitioner filed appeal there against under Section 9 of the act which was also dismissed in default on 19. 10. 1992. Interestingly the petitioner neither got the said appeal revived or pursued the matter any further and accepted the position. Order of dismissing the appeal on 19. 10. 1992, therefore, find finality. Curiously when this eviction order sought to be implemented and the Estate Officer passed warrants of possession dated 25. 2. 2000 in this behalf, the petitioner approached this court by present writ petition seeking quashing of impugned order dated 25. 2. 2000. ( 13 ) CWP. NO. 1272/2000 is also filed in identical circumstances. Here eviction order was passed on 29. 10. 1992 which was served on the petitioner on 4. 11. 1992 and the appeal filed there against was dismissed by the learned additional District Judge on 22. 2. 1993. Order in appeal was not challenged. However, when order /warrant of possession dated 25. 2. 2000 was passed in this case also this petition is filed seeking quashing of this order. ( 14 ) THE only submission made is that when even after dismissal of the appeals no action was taken for almost 8 years, the respondents should not be allowed to take any action for dis-possession after lapse of such a long period. This argument has no merit at all. The petitioners were not authorised occupants. Valid eviction orders are passed against them and appeals preferred by them had also been dismissed. Merely because for few years action of dispossession was not taken, it would not mean that such a right in favour of respondents pursuant to eviction order would stand extinguished. That apart, the respondents have explained the reasons also because of which no action immediately was taken. As pointed out above after introduction of Hire Purchase Scheme/cash down scheme, a number of writ petitions were filed in this court which were pending consideration and during the pendency of these writ petitions, no action of dispossession was taken. These writ petitions were decided and the judgments given are reported as under: 1. D. S. I. D. C. Vs. Chander Parkash and another, 1994 1 AD (Delhi) 377. 2. Deihistateenterprises Association and Others Vs. D. S. I. D. C. , 1994 III AD (Delhi) 1351, 3. Pushplata Vs. D. S. I. D. C, 61 (1996) dlt 818 (D8 ). These writ petitions were decided and the judgments given are reported as under: 1. D. S. I. D. C. Vs. Chander Parkash and another, 1994 1 AD (Delhi) 377. 2. Deihistateenterprises Association and Others Vs. D. S. I. D. C. , 1994 III AD (Delhi) 1351, 3. Pushplata Vs. D. S. I. D. C, 61 (1996) dlt 818 (D8 ). ( 15 ) IT may be noted that in the last judgment, a Division Bench of this Court directed DSIDC to give one final opportunity to the occupants of these sheds to opt under Hire Purchase scheme. This judgment was rendered on 16. 1. 1996. Thereafter, another opportunity was granted to the petitioners. The petitioners failed to avail even this opportunity and thereafter warrants of possession/orders elated 25. 2. 2000 were issued in both these cases. Therefore, even factually the petitioners are incorrect in alleging that there was inaction on the part of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners pursuant to eviction orders. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were ready to pay the cost of the sheds even now and the offer made was that the cost as on 1. 4. 1989 to be charged along with interest. This proposal is not acceptable to the respondents and rightly so. When tbe petitioners did not avail repeated opportunities given for this purpose and even final opportunity after the directions of Division Bench of this Court in pushplata case (supra), they cannot be allowed any further indulgence in the matter. ( 17 ) THESE writ petitions are, therefore, without any merit and are dismissed. No costs.