Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.:- Supplementary affidavit filed today, the same may be placed on record. Heard Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. BY means of the present writ petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur by which he has directed the petitioners to pay damages @ Rs.30/- per day and the interest thereon @ 6%. It appears that the petitioners' father late Mathura Prasad, son of Kalika Prasad, had been granted a licence of the Company, i.e., British India Corporation Limited to run the canteen at the factory premises @ Rs.10/- per month. After the death of Mathura Prasad on 29.12.1993, the petitioners were running the canteen. A suit was filed by the respondents for the ejectment and for the recovery of damages. The suit was filed under the U.P. Public Premises Act, 1971. In P.P.E. Case No. 3 of 2008. The Estate Officer vide order dated 20.12.2008 directed the petitioners to vacate the premises in dispute within 15 days and further ordered to pay a sum of Rs.32,71,500/- along with interest @12%. The damages was calculated @ Rs.300/- per day for unauthorized use of the premises. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal has been allowed in part. The appellate court has reduced the damages from Rs.300/- per day to Rs.30/- per day and the interest from 12% to 6%. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' father Sri Mathura Prasad by an agreement dated 4.4.1970 was allowed to run the canteen at the premises of the factory on a payment of Rs.10/- per month. After the death of their father, the petitioners were running the canteen. The appellate authority fixed Rs. 30/- per day on the basis of the office order no. 9/99, dated 10.5.1999. He submitted that prior to 1999, the petitioners should be liable to pay only Rs.10/- per month as per agreement entered into by the Company with their father and thereafter on the basis of the office order no.9/99, dated 10.5.1999 the damages may be enhanced. 30/- per day on the basis of the office order no. 9/99, dated 10.5.1999. He submitted that prior to 1999, the petitioners should be liable to pay only Rs.10/- per month as per agreement entered into by the Company with their father and thereafter on the basis of the office order no.9/99, dated 10.5.1999 the damages may be enhanced. However, he agreed that the petitioners may pay the rent from 1979 to 10.5.1999 @ Rs.10/- per day and for the subsequent period @ Rs.30/- per day and also ready to vacate the premises within the time fixed by this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order. The appellate authority has fixed Rs.30/- per day as damages in view of office order no.9/99, dated 10.5.1999. Therefore, it appears that there is no justification asking the petitioners to pay the damages @ Rs.30/- per day for the period prior to 10.5.1999. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The petitioners are liable to pay damages from 19.2.1979 to 9.5.1999 @ Rs.10/- per day and from 10.5.1999 @ Rs.30/- per day and shall also liable to pay interest @6% thereon. (ii) The petitioners shall pay the balance amount within six months from today and vacate the premises in dispute within 15 days from today.