PRAN NATH BARAROO Vs. ESTATE OFFICER & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before us hails from Jammu and Kashmir and was working in Border Security Force (BSF). He was allotted a Govt. accommodation bearing No. C -326, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi before he superannuated on 30th June, 2005. Since he did not vacate the Govt. accommodation even after the prescribed period of eight months for which he could retain the said accommodation after his superannuation, proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorized Occupants) Act were instituted against him. The eviction order passed against him by the Estate Officer was upheld by the appellate Court. The appellant then filed a WP (C) No. 6543/2008 taking the plea that being a Kashmiri Pandit, he was not in a position to return to his native place on account of state of turmoil prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir. The learned Single Judge found no merit in the petition but while dismissing the petition, he granted six months' time to the appellant, subject to payment of normal licence fee and his filing an undertaking to vacate the Govt. accommodation within six months from the date of the order. Being aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant/writ petitioner did not file any undertaking in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.9.2008 and he continues to occupy the Govt. accommodation on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court directing the respondents to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the quarter in question during the pendency of the appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No. 332/2011 and connected matters. In those cases, the respondent in the appeals were Kashmiri Pandits having permanent residence in State of Jammu and Kashmir. They were employees of the Central Govt. and most of them posted in Kashmir on account of turbulence of state, putting their lives in danger. They were transferred by the Govt. to Delhi. On being posted in Delhi, they were provided Govt. accommodation, which they could retain till their retirement. However, they did not vacate the Govt. accommodation taking the plea that the prevailing conditions in Jammu and Kashmir were not conducive enough to ensure their safe return to their respective native place and therefore they were forced to stay in Delhi. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions filed by them. Being aggrieved from the order of the learned Single Judge, Union of India filed appeals which came to be disposed of, vide order dated 1st June, 2012. Though, the Division Bench did not find any fault with the directions given by the learned Single Judge, it was directed that the said directions of the learned Single Judge were given keeping in view the salient and peculiar facts of those cases and therefore could not be treated as general directions in all types of cases pertaining to Right to Shelter. The following views taken in the aforesaid judgment is relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant states that the case of the appellant/petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision since he also was an employee of the Central Govt. who was posted in Sri Nagar, he was also transferred by the Govt. of Sri Nagar to Delhi on account of danger to his family, he also had a house in Kashmir which has been destroyed by the extremists and has not been able to reconstruct/restore the same, he or his family do not have any other residence in any part of the country and he is not in a position to go back to his native place, since the conditions prevailing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are not favourable to his safe return.