HARWARI LAL VERMA Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India brought by the petitioner in respect of an order passed by the Estate Officer under S. 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioner at the relevant time was employed as a civilian clerk in the Defence Services. He was allotted a Quarter situated at T-13, Tabruk Lane in Delhi Cantonment. Apparently, he was posted out of Delhi in March, 1968, but he retained the quarter. It seems that he went on paying the market rent but eventually as per letter, dated 18th March, 1974, he was informed that the allotment of his quarter was deemed to have been cancelled with effect from 9th March, 1968. This was followed by the order of Estate Officer, Brig. P. Bhattacharya, holding that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant who had to be evicted.

(2.) The petitioner filed an appeal under S. 9 of the Act which was heard by Shri G. R. Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The appellate order was passed on 23rd April, 1975. It was there held that the allotment had been cancelled on 18th March, 1974, with effect from 9th March, 1'968. It was observed that the petitioner could not continue to occupy the house even on his transfer back to Delhi Cantt. unless the house was re-allotted to him. A reference was made to the definition of "unauthorised occupant" as set out in S. 2(g) of the Act which shows that "unauthorised occupant" includes a person whose authority to keep the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. On this finding the petitioner was held to be an unauthorised Occupant-

(3.) Against the order of the Additional District Judge, and indeed against the order of respondent No. 1 for eviction from the quarter in question the petitioner has moved the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The sum and substance of the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner Is not an unauthorised occupant. It has been submitted that the petitioner being in service had to have an allotment and the allotment could not be deemed to be cancelled with effect from 9th March, 1968. It may be pointed out that the petitioner sent a protest showing that the allotment cannot be cancelled. It cannot be denied that the petitioner was transferred from Delhi in March 1968, and was posted for some time at Chandigarh and thereafter in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He was re-posted back in Delhi in 1973. During this period the petitioner continued to occupy the quarter although he himself was not in Delhi It is suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a rule permitting retention of quarter at the original duty station because some correspondence was exchanged between the Western Command, Simla, and the Army Headquarters, New Delhi, an extract from which he has set out in para 11 of the writ petition. I find that the extract has little effect because I am unable to understand what it means. In fact, the petition states that there is a letter dated 2nd March, 1968 and dated 22nd Nov. 1973. The letter has a heading: "Concessions admissible to civilians............" and then goes on to say "retention of family accommodation allotted by Government at the old duty station on payment of normal rent............". I am unable to understand what this extract means. In any event, the question before the Court is whether the order of the Additional District Judge is correct. He has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was no longer an allottee. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the allotment could not be cancelled in 1974 with effect from 9th March, 1968, I think this has little effect on the petitioner because even if the cancellation is considered to be prospective it would lead to the same conclusion viz. that after the cancellation the petitioner could be ordered to vacate the premises.