Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The appellants herein have been in occupation of shops/office spaces as per details set out in para 4 of the impugned judgment, which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.

3. The case made out by the appellants before us and the learned single Judge was that ITDC has been renewing license deeds from time to time on enhanced license fee after increasing the last paid license fees by 10-30%. It is stated that no uniform policy was/is followed and the license fee of different shops/office spaces was/is different, with substantial variation between the amount being demanded and paid from the allottees. It is stated that ITDC does not have any policy or guidelines for renewal or increase in license fee and is guilty of adhocism and arbitrariness. It is alleged that in 26th August, 2006, ITDC decided not to renew the license though the appellants had already made request for renewal. Thereafter, ITDC decided to renew the license in respect of the shops/office space on enhanced license fee of Rs.250/- per sq. ft. for Hotel Ashoka, Rs.225/- per sq. ft. for Hotel Samrat and Rs.176-220/- per sq.ft. for Hotel Janpath. It is stated that in many cases the increase demanded was 450% higher than the earlier license fee being charged. It is submitted that the increase is arbitrary and ITDC being a State cannot act as a private landlord and demand exorbitant license fee. It is also submitted that in the absence of any policy framed by ITDC, Office memorandum dated 19th February, 1992 and the guidelines dated 30th May, 2002 issued by the Government of India for proceedings under the Act are applicable. It is stated that ITDC has violated the said guidelines/memorandum and therefore their decision to initiate proceedings for eviction and to claim damages under the Act should be quashed and set aside.

6. The next question is whether ITDC being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution can be compelled and mandated by issue of a Writ direction to extend or renew the license on terms which the court feels are just, fair and reasonable. Another contention of the appellants is that the ITDC has acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory and highhanded manner.

7. ITDC, respondent herein is a Government Corporation and therefore State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, ITDC as a Corporation is not performing any public functions or duties. It is operating and maintaining hotels as a commercial venture. The object and purpose of ITDC is to earn profit and as such ITDC performs limited social obligations or purpose, keeping in view the nature of its activities. ITDC is a business venture in which commercial considerations and profit motive are primary/main concern and guiding factor. With this objective, ITDC is competent and entitled to frame its own policies in respect of grant of licenses and their renewal. However, the policy so framed cannot be discriminatory and one which is arbitrary, so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Action should not be actuated by bias or malafides. Quantum or the increase as demanded by ITDC cannot be set aside in exercise of power of judicial review unless the same is arbitrary and takes into consideration irrelevant facts. The scope of judicial interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is therefore limited and narrow. Keeping these aspects and principles in mind, we have examined the contentions raised by the appellants with reference to alleged arbitrary exercise of power and discretion by ITDC.

12. ITDC does not enjoy monopoly and is in open and direct competition with privately run hotels which are in abundance in Delhi. ITDC does not enjoy any special privilege or advantage being an instrumentality of the State, unlike Development Authorities or housing boards under special statues constituted for social and public purpose and obligations in mind. Appellants per force because of status of ITDC as a State are not compelled to negotiate, deal and interact with the ITDC. ITDC does not enjoy a dominating position or substantial market share to control market rents/license fee for floor spaces in five star hotels. In a competitive market, ITDC is competing with others and cannot charge exorbitant license fee. Market or license fee is per se determined and fixed by market forces. Letting of shops and offices is a part of the business of ITDC and constitutes a portion of its profits and commercial activity. ITDC being a hotel and in hospitality business has to be given full freedom and play in joints to determine and decide what is more beneficial and commercially profitable for them, unless for some justified public reason ITDC being a State should not be permitted to do so or acts in a discriminatory manner in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. ITDC while taking commercial or financial decision have to be given freedom of play in joints. It is for ITDC to determine how and in what manner they want to manage and run the hotel including shops and offices which are let out/given to third parties on license fee basis. Renting out is a part of the commercial venture and contributes to their income. In purely commercial or financial matters, the Courts should not substitute their judgments for that of ITDC. The Court cannot supplant its own views for they are more equitable, reasonable, better suited or viable. The Court is only concerned with the decision making process and whether extraneous matters have been taken into consideration for reaching the final conclusion and whether the decision falls foul of Article 14 being arbitrary or discriminatory. The action of the ITDC cannot be faulted on the said grounds and its desire and attempt to get market license fee is not arbitrary or unreasonable.

23. Some of the appellants in their written submissions have expressed their willingness to abide by the terms and pay license fee as in the case of Barlingtons and Maharani of India. In case ITDC has renewed the contract with the said two parties, the appellants will be entitled to ask for renewal on the same terms and conditions subject of course to ITDC rejecting their requests for valid and cogent reasons which differentiates their case. However, we do not agree with the contention of the appellants that ITDC should give first offer of renewal/refusal to the present occupants depending upon the highest tender received by ITDC in the open tender. It is rightly pointed out by ITDC that this will have an adverse impact on the offers made by the third parties and cause prejudice. This is a matter of policy, and the stand and reasons given by ITDC are not arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. Similarly, the plea raised by the appellant-occupants relying upon the order in O.M.P. No. 394/2008 titled Decibel Versus I.T.D.C. is misconceived. In the said case, the Court while disposing of an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had merely recorded the contention of counsel of the occupant that they should be permitted to meet the best offer received by ITDC. Learned single Judge had merely observed that the occupant therein shall be entitled to make an offer and the same if maintainable under the law can be considered by the respondent ITDC. Thus no directions or findings have been given to ITDC.