S K KACKER Vs. AIIMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 1.8.2003 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff, an ex-Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,23,914/-.

(2.) THE Trial Court dismissed the suit on account of the fact that the claim of the appellant/plaintiff was adjusted against the claims of the respondent/defendant towards penal rent for occupation of Director's Bunglow, recovery towards car loan and the fact that the appellant/plaintiff was paid salary for the period he did not work.

(3.) IN the facts of the present case, the appellant/plaintiff admittedly continued to stay in the premises of respondent/defendant/AIIMS for the duration of the Writ Petition on account of the statement given by counsel for the respondent/defendant/AIIMS in the Writ Petition which was filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, in terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dayal Rai (supra), the possession of the appellant/plaintiff cannot be said to be unauthorized occupation entitling the respondent/defendant/AIIMS to claim penal charges for the said period. The respondent/defendant/AIIMS, therefore, cannot claim the penal charges, except the admitted rent for the period during which the Writ Petition of the appellant/plaintiff remained pending in this Court. Thereafter, however, the respondent/defendant is entitled to claim a reasonable amount for the period from 19.7.1996 to 31.10.1996 - the period of unauthorized occupation, by deduction from the retiral benefit of the appellant/plaintiff.