Award, cannot contend that the Arbitrator has wrongly allowed the remission of the licence fee in favour of the petitioner. As far as the amount of such remission is concerned, the Arbitrator has taken note of the fact that the petitioner did not terminate the Agreement in spite of lesser area being granted to it by the respondent. Not only this, the petitioner had also sought a renewal of the Agreement after the expiry of the first year. The petitioner further occupied the site even after the expiry of the extended term and therefore, balancing the equities, the Arbitrator has granted a remission of 50% in the licence fee. Such approach of the Arbitrator cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. The claim of the petitioner being in form of damages, this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 34 of the Act, cannot sit in appeal to reaccess the same. I therefore, find no merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 8. As far as the Arbitral Award directs the petitioner to pay double the licence fee for the period of occupation beyond the term of the Agreement, the counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no proof of loss adduced by the respondent and therefore, the counter claim of the respondent could not have been granted on the basis of a clause providing for liquidated damages in the contract. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in Pragati Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDA, ILR (2012) V Delhi 723 to contend that even where a contract provides for liquidated damages, it is only the upper limit of damages that can be awarded incase of breach of contract, however, the party claiming such damages has to still prove such damages in accordance with Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act.
