JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner was a licensee under respondents 1 and 2 to run a refreshment stall in the premises belonging to the respondent Corporation at Kerur bus stand in Belgaum Division. The licence period was for 3 years in the first instance which had been extended for a further period of two years i.e. up to 30. 9. 1997. Petitioner did not vacate the premises even after the expiry of the extended period of the licence and as such became un-authorised occupant. Efforts on the part of the respondent Corporation to grant licence in favour of another person by inviting tenders from intending bidders were thwarts by the petitioner by approaching the civil Court and seeking for a restraint order against the respondents. Ultimately all such efforts on the part of the petitioner having failed he was forced to vacate the premises with effect from 13.2.1999. The subject matter of this Writ Petition is the justification or otherwise of the quantum of damages that was determined by the Competent Officer payable by the petitioner for his un-authorised occupancy of the premises for the period 1. 10. 1997 to 13. 2. 1999. 2. As per order dated 25. 11. 1999 the Competent Officer determined such damages to be at Rs. 86,691/- on the premise that the petitioner was liable to pay damages @ Rs. 5,111/- per month which was the rate that had been offered by the highest bidder in response to the advertisement of the Corporation inviting offers from the intending bidders. The Competent Officer also directed that the petitioner was liable to pay interest @ 20% per annum on this amount and with further cost of Rs. 2,000/- etc. Petitioner appealed to the Appellate Authority i. e., the District Judge, Bagalkot under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1974. By order dated 19th September, 2001 the learned District Judge having allowed the appeal in part and having setting aside the operation of the order of the Competent Officer with regard to the levy of costs only and the petitioners liability to pay the damages of Rs. 86,691/- and at the rate of interest as levied by the Competent Officer was left with undisturbed. Petitioners has approached this Court under Article 227 being aggrieved by these two orders. 86,691/- and at the rate of interest as levied by the Competent Officer was left with undisturbed. Petitioners has approached this Court under Article 227 being aggrieved by these two orders. I have heard Sri S. A. Kalagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Arun, learned Counsel or respondents 1 and 2. 3. The submission of Sri S. A. Kalagi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Competent Officer has arbitrarily fixed the damages at as high as Rs. 5,111/- per month whereas the petitioner immediately prior to the expiry of the licence period was paying the monthly licence fee of Rs. 1,585/- and in fact at the time of his induction to the premises it was a mere Rs. 1,056/- per month and if over a period of five years increase could be by about Rs. 500/- a phenomenal increase of over three times the amount that was being paid immediately earlier is arbitrary unreasonable and calls for interference. Learned Counsel also submits that the levy of interest @ 20% per annum is not sustainable inasmuch as the Competent Officer is not enabled to levy any interest under the provisions of the Act or Rules framed thereunder. Learned Counsel also submits that if at all any interest can be levied it should be an equitable rate which is at 6% per annum and nothing beyond. 4. Sri G. Arun, learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that the Competent Officer was justified in fixing the damages at the rate of RS. 5,111/- per month inasmuch as that was the amount offered by the intending bidders who were prepared to pay this amount as licence fee in favour of the Corporation for issuing licence to run the stall at the place where the petitioner was squatting un-authorisedly which affected the revenue of the corporation and it is only just and proper that the Corporation should be compensated for the same. Learned Counsel submits that such amount which the Corporation could have received from any other person, definitely constitutes a fair measure for fixing the damage as against the petitioner. Petitioner is a person who has admittedly remained in the premises beyond the licence period. Learned Counsel submits that such amount which the Corporation could have received from any other person, definitely constitutes a fair measure for fixing the damage as against the petitioner. Petitioner is a person who has admittedly remained in the premises beyond the licence period. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the petitioner was pursuing his remedies under the Act and in fact the Appellate Order came to be passed only on 19th September, 2001 and the petitioner having vacated the premises much earlier even as on 13. 2. 1999 when the proceedings before the Competent Officer was still pending he should not be considered to be an unauthorized occupant and at any rate the damages as high as at Rs. 5,111/- per month cannot be mulcted on the petitioner. I am unable to accept this submission. 5. Even assuming that the petitioner was pursuing the proceedings before the Civil Court with bonafides to enable him to stay on the premises, until and unless his stay is sustained by the order or decree passed by the Court and such stay in legitimized by the order of the Court, because that the proceedings were pending before the Civil Court, that in itself cannot be a circumstance to absolve the petitioner from the consequence of his unauthorized occupation. The fact remains that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant on and after 1. 10. 1997. He continued to be so till 13. 2. 1999. The mere fact that he had vacated the premises even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Competent Officer can not absolve the petitioner from the liability to pay damages upto that point of time but can only relieve him of. The measure adopted by the Competent Officer as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent who has fixed the damages @ Rs. 5,111/- per month which were the amount that the Corporation would have received from any other licensee is a reasonable measure and it does not call for interference by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. 5,111/- per month which were the amount that the Corporation would have received from any other licensee is a reasonable measure and it does not call for interference by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. With regard to the levy of interest, though the learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits to sustain the same drawing the attention of the Court to Clause 18 of the terms of the licence which reads as under : 18) The Licensee shall pay the Licence Fee on or before the 5th day of each month for which the licence fee is payable. In case the Licensee fails to pay the Monthly Licence Fee as prescribed herein or commits breach of any of the Terms and Conditions aforesaid, the Licensor may notify the Licensee about such arrears or breach as the case may be, and in the event of the Licensee failing or omitting to remedy the breach or paying the arrears within a fortnight of such notification the Licensor may (a) forfeit the Security Deposit in full or part (b) charge interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the Licence Fee remaining, and (c) determine or revoke the Licence without any further notice. I am afraid this submission cannot be accepted on legal principles. It is no doubt true that the Corporation can levy interest up to the rate of 20% per annum in respect of those persons who remain in arrears even after having been notified the period of arrears and having been called upon to pay the same within 15 days and who do not so pay it. The present case is not one such case which can said to be covered under Clause 18 of the agreement. The amount of damages that was required to be paid by the petitioner was being quantified for the first time under order dated 25. 11. 1999 passed by the Competent Officer. There is no question of the petitioner being called upon to pay interest on this amount to this point of time. If at all, it is only thereafter if the petitioner continues to remain in arrears or not paying this amount it may attract levy of interest. Even then Clause 18 of the agreement cannot be invoked to claim interest on such arrears as determined by the Competent Officer. If at all, it is only thereafter if the petitioner continues to remain in arrears or not paying this amount it may attract levy of interest. Even then Clause 18 of the agreement cannot be invoked to claim interest on such arrears as determined by the Competent Officer. 7. In the circumstances while the levy of interest 20% on the amount of damages as ordered by the Competent Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable, the Corporation being entitled to claim a reasonable rate of interest on this amount of Rs. 86,691/- which became due and payable in favour of the Corporation on and after the passing of the order by the Competent Officer on 25. 11. 1999, the Corporation is entitled for interest on this amount from this date onwards up to the date of payment. I am of the view that interest @ 11% is the rate of interest which is just and proper and also as provided for in the Central Rules of a similar enactment to be the just rate in the present case also. 8. In the circumstances petitioner will be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 86,691/- as damages with interest @ 11% per annum from 25. 11. 1999 till payment. Orders passed by the Competent Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority stand modified to this extent. In respect of other portions of the order it remains in tact. It is only just and proper that the Corporation shall give credit to whatever amounts the petitioner had paid directly or through Court deposits, if it has been drawn and taken to the credit of the Corporation. Petition allowed in part. Ruled issued and made absolute.