R N VASUDEVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a member of the Indian Administrative Service was occupying Government residence in 3, Purana Kila Road, New Delhi, at the material time. The payment of rent by him, inter alia, was governed by clause (4) (b) of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Amendment Rules, 1964 which amended the parent rules of 1963 being Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The relevant part of the rule is as follows : - "S. R. 317-B-3. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2) or (3), Government accommodation may be allotted to any officer, or, if he is in occupation of such accommodation, it may be allowed to be retained by him, under the provisions of F. R. 45-A, in the event of his becoming the owner of a house either in his own name or in the name of any other person or of a member of his family becoming the owner of a house, in the following cases, namely- (b) where the house belongs to the officer, as a member of a Hindu Undivided family and the Director of Estates is satisfied that partition of the house by metes and bounds is not feasible to make it fit for an independent residence."

(2.) The. petitioner constructed a house in Defence Colony and in the income-tax return showed it as a house belonging to a Hindi Undivided family of which he was a Kartha and his wife and three minor children were the members. Knowing that he would not be entitled to occupy the Government residence after the construction of this house, he wrote to the Government on 14th August 1964 that the house constructed by him is the property of the Hindu Undivided family of which he was the Karta and he should be allowed to retain his official residence under the provisions of sub-rule (4) (b) reproduced above. By the letter of 5th September 1964, the Directorate of Estates requested him to furnish further particulars in view of his request regarding the retention of Government residence under subrule (4) (b) of the revised S.R. 317-B-3. In furnishing the particulars on 13th November 1964, the petitioner stated that the entire house constituted one unit and was not amenable to division into portions which could be inhabited by more than one family unit. He also stated that a single family was in occupation of the said house at the relevant time. He further stated that on a partition of the house the share allottable to him as his share would not be fit for an independent residence for himself. He filed a copy of the income-tax assessment order for the year 1963-64 in which the house was accepted by the IncomeTax Officer to be a property of the Hindu Undivided family on the statement made by the petitioner to that effect. The impugned letter of 14th October 1965 informed him that the petitioner's case has been considered carefully in the light of the provisions of the existing S.R. 317-B-3 and it was regretted that it was not covered by any of the recognised exemptions especially those given in clause (4) (b) and (c). It was decided, therefore, that under the second proviso to clause (3) of S.R. 317-B-3, the petitioner had to pay with effect from 20th July 1964 standard rent under F.R. 45-B or pooled standard rent under F.R. 45-A whichever is higher. The present writ petition is filed for the quashing of this order.

(3.) The writ petition was resisted by the Government denying that the house was the property of a Hindu Undivided family or that the question of its partition at all arose.