DHANPATI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing and setting aside of, inter alia, the judgement and order dated 5.11.98 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in appeals No. PPA 191/88 and PPA. 192/88 filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter refer to as `the Act'). The appeals were preferred against the composite order of the Estate Officer dated 10.10.88 whereby the petitioner had been ordered to be evicted from the public premises bearing quarter No.T-29/3, Red Fort, Delhi-6 and had also been ordered to pay damages at the rate of Rs.500.00 per month for the period of her unauthorised occupation i.e. from 20.10.97 till she would vacate the said accommodation.

(2.) The said accommodation was allotted to the petitioner's husband who passed away on 20.10.96 while still in service. It is an admitted fact that after his death no dependent member of his family has been given government employment till date. The allotment of the said accommodation in the name of the petitioner's late husband was cancelled w.e.f. 20.10.97 after permitting the petitioner to retain the said accommodation for a period of one year after the death of her husband as per the applicable rules. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not vacate the said accommodation despite cancellation of allotment in her favour, proceedings for eviction from the said premises were initiated under the said Act which resulted in the passing of the order dated 10.10.98 by the Estate Officer whereby eviction was ordered. Apart from eviction, as noted above, damages at the rate of Rs.500.00 per month for the period of her unauthorised occupation were also imposed.

(3.) Upon going through the impugned judgement and order dated 5.11.98 and on considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner initially relied upon an office memorandum dated 17.3.81 to establish that her occupation was not unauthorised and that she could not be evicted under the said Act. In the said office memorandum dated 17.3.81 which is quoted in extenso in the impugned judgement and order dated 5.11.98, it is clearly pointed out that dependent family members of deceased civilians paid from defence service estimates were eligible to retain government accommodation at normal rates for a period not exceeding four months from the date of their death. It is further noted in the said office memorandum that ad hoc allotment of accommodation to the dependents of the deceased civilian Government servant could be made provided the said dependent got employment in an eligible office within a period of 12 months from the demise of the individual and provided that the accommodation continued to be in the said dependent's occupation and had not been vacated in the interregnum. It was further clearly stipulated that eviction in such cases could not be delayed on the consideration that the dependent was likely to get an appointment. It further provided that such persons were permitted to retain the accommodation for a further period not exceeding six months, in another words, totalling to a period of one and a half year from the date of death of the erstwhile employee. It is clear that the petitioner's husband passed away on 20.10.96 and one and a half years period expired on 20.4.98. It is abundantly clear that during this period, no dependent member of the petitioner's late husband was given employment. As such, even as per the office memorandum of 17.3.1981, the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question. All these facts and circumstances have been considered in detail by the learned Additional District Judge and I find that there is no case made out for the interference with the same.