R SREEDHARAN Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a house in Vadakara. According to the petitioner, on the request of the second respondent through the Tahsildar, Vadakara the house was given on rent for the residential accommodation of the fifth respondent who was then the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. This was in consistent with Ext. P-1 order of the Government Ext. P1 order was issued by the Government in order to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court regarding the residential accommodation of Judicial Officers of the State. According to Ext. P1, the Judicial Officer posted in a particular station shall intimate the District Collector of his requirement of residential accommodation. The District Collector shall make necessary arrangements to locate accommodation within a month according to the specifications of plinth area as laid down in G.O. MS.46/94/Home dated 3.3.1994. If the Collector is not able to locate suitable accommodation, the accommodation located by the Judicial Officer within the prescribed plinth area limits shall be treated as requisitioned rental accommodation for the purpose of payment of rent. Rent of the building will be fixed considering the prevailing market rate by a committee consisting of the District Collector as convenor, the Executive Engineer (Buildings) and District Judge as members. Rent of the building should be paid to the owner by the concerned Court from the provision under 'Rent, Rate and Taxes'. The Judicial Officer will deduct 12% of his basic pay from the salary bill as his share of rent payable. In the case of the Judicial Officer already in occupation of rental accommodation the same benefit will be extended to him provided that the plinth area of the building occupied is within the prescribed norms.

(2.) The fifth respondent addressed Ext. P-2 letter to the second respondent requesting to fix the rent in accordance with Ext P1 order. Accordingly, by Ext P-3 the Superintending Engineer fixed the rent as Rs. 1,764/- with effect from 1.9.1995. The fifth respondent retired with effect from 30.6.1998. But the fifth respondent did not vacate the building. This Original Petition was filed before the retirement of the fifth respondent because no rent was paid to the petitioner since October, 1997. During the above time the fifth respondent was under suspension. The first prayer in the Original Petition is for payment of arrears of rent which the petitioner received subsequent to the filing of the Original Petition. The second prayer is also for a direction to the respondents to take steps to hand over vacant possession of the building to the petitioner on the expiry of the month of July 1998.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also made available a communication from the High Court to the District Collector dated 31.8.1995. The above communication states that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara has informed that the house belonging to the petitioner has been allotted for his occupation by the Revenue authorities on a monthly rent of Rs. 1.200/- as per his request and the High Court has accorded sanction to occupy the same. Therefore, the District Collector was requested to make necessary arrangements to forward necessary details regarding the matter to the Government