Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties writ petition is taken upfor disposal. ( 2 ) PETITIONER, a licensee of a shop bearing No. 6, Palika Parking Opposite Regal cinema, New Delhi filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondent from disconnecting the Supply to electric connection No. 169204. Petitioner also sought 21 writ of mandamus with direction to the respondent to renew the lease in respect of the petitioner s shop for further period on the existing licence fee within escalation of 15%. ( 3 ) THE controversy in the writ petition revolves around Clause-1 of the licence, which reads as under : "that the licence shall be for a period of 5 years w. e. f. 17. 8. 1991 and there- after it shall be the entire discretion of the licensor to extend or not to ex- tend the period of licence. In case it is decided by the licensor that the licence be renewed/extended it shall be renewed/extended for a further period of 5 years from the day following the date on which the term of the licence expires at a licence fee calculated at the rate of licence fee payable under the present licence plus its 15% (or by the percentage as applicable under the policy of the Committee for the time being in force) as monthly licence fee of the renewed licence provided the licensee exercises his option for renewal of licence in writing for another term of five years within 60 days before the date of expiry of the present licence and the licensee completes all the required formalities for renewal of licence within the stipulated period the satisfaction of the licensor, it shall be presumed (hat the licensee is not interested in further extension/renewal of his licence beyond the date of expiry of term of the licence and consequently the licence shall stand determined ip-so-facio with effect from the date of expiry of the term of the present licence and in the event o ( the licensee not sundering the vacant possession of the shop within the stipulatcif period under this deed, the licensee shall render himself liable for action for eviction and recovery of damages under the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Oc- cupants) Act, 1971. " ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that for the renewed term, the in- crease in licence fee could only be 15% and not more. The licence was initially for the period 17. 8. 1991 to 17. 8. 1996 with licence fee of Rs. 16. 076. 00 p. m. Respondents on the expiry of licence demanded increase in licence fee by 25%. Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the portion of Clause-I as produced hereinabove, where the renewal is provided @ 15% or by the percentage as applicable under the policy of the Committee for the time being. ( 5 ) MR. Amit Bansal contends that as per the Resolution No. 49 dated 12. 9. 1991, licence fee was liable to be enhanced by 25%. The court vide an interim order dated 9. 9. 1996, recorded the petitioner s willingness to pay without prejudice to its rights and contentions, the licence fee with the enhancement rate of 25%. It is stated that though the figure mentioned in the said order of the enhanced licence fee payable was Rs. 19,22v- the correct amount of licence fee was Rs. 18,845. 00, which the petitioner has continued to pay. ( 6 ) IN my view Clause-1 of licence deed provides for the initial percentage of en- hancement of 15%. It also gives to the respondents the righl to charge an enhanced percentage as per their policy, which is what they have done. The writ petition, there- fore, to the extent seeking the relief of enhancement in licence fee being confined to 15%, has no merit and is liable to fail. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at this stage makes a submission that the petitioner has been making the payment of the licence fee on time i. e. on or before 10th of each month. Hence is entitled to the rebate in terms of Clause-3 as ap- plicable. Petitioner has undoubtedly received the benefit of rebate for the period 1991-96. The question is the admissibility of rebate for the period 1996 to August 2001. ( 8 ) THE prayer made by the petitioner is fair and equitable. Hence is entitled to the rebate in terms of Clause-3 as ap- plicable. Petitioner has undoubtedly received the benefit of rebate for the period 1991-96. The question is the admissibility of rebate for the period 1996 to August 2001. ( 8 ) THE prayer made by the petitioner is fair and equitable. In case the petitioner has been making the payment as required on or before the stipulated date, the respon- dent shall make available the rebate as applicable to other licensees in Palika Parking for the period 1996 onwards as per its policy. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner would also be entitled and eligible for renewal of licence as per the policy. Writ petition stands disposed of