DOON SCHOOL,DEHRADUN Vs. MANOHAR DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner no.1 (hereinafter referred to as the school) is a private educational institution. One Scheme known as House Vacation Scheme for all employees in the administrative, technical and support staff categories for those who are staying in the school complex was launched by the petitioner no.1. This scheme was launched to free up the land occupied by the quarters for other purposes of the school. The father of the respondent was appointed on the post of Electrician in the year 1948 in the school. He was given a quarter within the campus of the school in lieu of his services with the school. He retired from service on 15.07.1983. The respondent joined the services of the school on 31.01.1984 on the post of Electrician and started living in the same quarter within the campus of the school, with the consent of the school. Most of the employees opted for the scheme and accordingly they started shifting out. The school on its part started demolishing such quarters. The respondent did not avail the option. Respondent was asked to shift from his present Administrative Staff Quarter i.e. quarter no.JA-1 at Jaipur Lines to Administrative Staff Quarter No.3 near Oberai House in Doon School vide petitioner's communication dated 23.04.2011. He was also asked to handover the keys of the present accommodation by 30.04.2011. Respondent did not shift. On 02.05.2011 he was again asked to shift from his present accommodation to the alternate accommodation by 15.05.2011. Respondents instead of shifting to the alternate accommodation instituted Original Suit No.144 of 2011 on 12.05.2011 seeking a relief that petitioners be restrained from evicting him from the present accommodation. Learned trial court granted ex-parte interim injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court failed to consider that the petitioner/appellant's school is a private unaided educational institution and it has every right to ask its employee to shift another accommodation within the school premises, which does not tantamount to forcible eviction. He submitted that the both the judgments passed by the courts below are not in accordance with law as the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent by concealing the fact that the plaintiff/respondent had been asked to shift from his present accommodation. He submitted that the respondent is an employee of private Educational Institution, which gets no aid from the Government, thus no injunction can be granted to the respondent in view of Section 14 read with Section 41 (e) of the Specific Relief Act, as the relief tantamount to the enforcement of personal service. He submitted that the petitioner's institution has never tried to evict the respondent by force at any point of time. The respondent was simply asked to shift from his staff quarter to administrative staff quarter i.e. within the school premises, thus the apprehensions alleged by the respondent are totally misconceived. He further submitted that the trial court's order is based on incorrect appreciation of law and facts and the trial court has not given any categorical finding whether the respondent has any prima facie case. He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. vs. Manorama Sirsi, 2004 3 SCC 172 and A. Shanmugam vs. Arya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Aripapanai Sangam, Etc.,2012 2 UD 163 and submitted that even the lower appellate court exercised the jurisdiction in improper manner.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgments passed by the courts below are in accordance with law and the same do not require any interference by this Court. He submitted that the categorical and concurrent findings with regard to the fact as well as law have been recorded by both the courts below and same cannot be looked into by this Court as this Court is not sitting in appeal. He submitted that there is no legal ground in the writ petition, therefore, same is not legally maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. He also submitted that the respondent is an authorized occupant over the property in question and the area of accommodation, offered by the petitioners is almost 1/4 th of the present accommodation, which is not suitable for residence of a family. He further submitted that the petitioner want to evict the respondent forcibly from the property in question, which is not permissible under the law. He placed reliance on paragraph 4 of the j Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash, 2004 3 SCC 682.