1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 225 OF 2010 Shri Nandgopal Kudchadkar Kudchadkar House, Opposite Telephone House, Marvalem – Curchorem, Goa. …. Petitioner V/s Goa Tourism Development Corp. Ltd., (A Govt. of Goa Undertaking) Trionora Apartment, Panaji-Goa. …. Respondent Mr. V.A. Lawande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. G. Xettigar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 29th APRIL, 2010. JUDGMENT : Heard. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 18/03/2010 of the learned District Judge by which the petitioner herein has been granted stay of execution, subject to furnishing the bank guarantee of 24 lacs, within a period of one week. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been occupying public premises known as Club Paradiso from 7/11/2009 without execution of any agreement with the respondent and without regularly paying the 2 rent. In the second round of litigation consequent to order dated 19/01/2010 of the learned District Judge, the learned Estate Officer by order dated 26/02/2010 has ordered the petitioner to be evicted and directed to pay licence fees in the sum of Rs.34,47,525/- as on 6/11/2009 with interest at the rate of 16% and damages at the rate of Rs.78,250/- per month from 16/05;/2009 to 6/11/2009 and Rs.89,988/- per month from 7/11/2009 till the date of vacation of the suit premises, with interest at the rate of 16%. 4. The petitioner came to be served with show cause notice pursuant to orders of this Court in a Writ Petition and from the date of service of notice from 16/05/2009, the petitioner has been considered as unauthorised occupant. As already stated, the petitioner was put in possession of the suit premises from 7/11/2001 and since then has been continuing in possession without any agreement and without paying the licence fees regularly. One fails to understand as to how public property was entrusted to the petitioner without entering into an agreement. The petitioner appears to have been the highest bidder who responded to the tender notice which stipulated lease of the public premises i.e. the said Restaurant (having an area of 184.50 square meters) for initial period of 3 years, renewable for a period of 3 years each, maximum period being 9 years and which would expire on 6/11/2010. The public premises appear to have been transferred from the Tourism Department to the 3 respondent GTDC and this the petitioner was informed by letter dated 1/01/2004 and the petitioner had been paying the licence fees though irregularly to the respondent-Corporation. 5. The main issue raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the learned District Court could not have directed the petitioner to give bank guarantee for the said sum of Rs.24 lacs without finding out what were the dues payable by the petitioner. 6. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing before this Court on 26/03/2010, what was represented on behalf of the petitioner was that not more than Rs.1,21,805/- were payable by the petitioner. According to the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner was due and payable a sum of Rs.25,22,374/-. The contention of the petitioner was that all the payments made by the petitioner were not reflected in the statement of account of the Corporation. The petitioner was given liberty to show the receipts of payment, in case he had, to the Senior Accountant, and, the Senior Accountant was directed to prepare a fresh statement. Accordingly, the Senior Accountant of the Corporation after taking into account the various payments made by the petitioner submitted a statement disclosing that the dues payable by the petitioner were Rs.24,34,500/-. Now the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay more than Rs.6,00,816/- as according to the petitioner, 4 the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.46,99,249/- including the sum of Rs.10 lacs paid by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23/12/2009 in Writ Petition No.854/2009. 7. There is no doubt that the petitioner was never regular in payment of the licence fees due and payable to the respondent and the respondent have saddled the petitioner with interest and according to the learned Senior Counsel that interest has been charged as per the regulations of the respondent. As on today, there is an order of eviction made against the petitioner and the same order directs the petitioner to pay the said sum of Rs.24 lacs. That apart, the petitioner is liable to pay at least a sum of Rs.24,34,500/- as calculated by the Senior Accountant of the respondent pursuant to the order of this Court. In other words, there is a clear liability to pay the arrears of licence fees or damages which the petitioner is bound to pay as he is using the public premises. Prima facie, the petitioner is liable to pay to the respondent Rs.24,34,500/-. There is no substance in the main grievance raised by the petitioner. What is the exact amount due and payable will also be considered by the appellate Court. The petitioner who did not have any agreement executed with the Corporation nor was regular to make the payments cannot be shown any further indulgence. 8. Petitioner's appeal is pending and it is ultimately the District 5 Court who will decide it on merits including whether the petitioner would be liable to pay the arrears of licence fees/damages for occupation of the premises. As stated, the petitioner is prima facie liable to pay Rs.24,34,500/-. The learned District Court therefore could not be faulted in asking the petitioner to give the bank guarantee to secure the said amount. In the light of that, I find there is no merit in this petition, and consequently, proceed to dismiss the same. Rule discharged. 10. At the request of the petitioner, a further time of two weeks is given to furnish bank guarantee for the sum of Rs.24 lacs as ordered by the learned District Judge. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-