Writ jurisdiction and damages claims may be balanced when unauthorised occupation depends on remanded factual findings.

Damages under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 depend on a prior finding of unauthorised occupation, while authorised occupation attracts rent rather than damages. Where the issues of lawful sub-tenancy and unauthorised occupation are interdependent, a writ court exercising Articles 226 and 227 may mould relief to balance equities and prevent unfair advantage. On that basis, preserving the damages claim while remitting the occupation question for fresh consideration was treated as permissible, because the earlier refusal of damages was only technical and not a final finding that damages were unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could, while remanding the matter for fresh consideration of lawful sub-tenancy and unauthorised occupation, also restore the respondent's claim for damages; and whether such a course could be adopted to balance the equities between the parties.

Analysis: The scheme of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 links liability for damages under Section 7 to a prior finding that the occupant is unauthorised, while authorised occupation attracts rent and not damages. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court may mould relief to do complete justice and prevent a party from retaining an unfair advantage. Since the question of damages depended upon the outcome on the issue of lawful sub-tenancy and unauthorised occupation, the two matters were properly treated as interdependent. The earlier order rejecting damages had only taken a technical view and did not record a conclusive finding that no damages were payable at all.

Conclusion: The High Court was entitled to condition the remand by preserving the respondent's claim for damages, and no error was shown in that course.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the remand order failed, and the appellate court refused to interfere with the High Court's exercise of writ and supervisory powers.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, a court may balance equities by restoring a damages claim when that claim is legally dependent on the outcome of the issue of authorised or unauthorised occupation, and may require a party to shed any unfair advantage before obtaining relief.

---