SHAMBHU LAL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has been heard, the averments in the writ petition, and the material placed on record perused. In this matter, a release application was filed by the respondent No. 2, the landlord, under Section 21(1 -A) of Act 13 of 1972 on the ground that her husband who was in the employment of the Union of India in Calcutta, was going to retire on 31.8.1993 and will be required to vacate the public building in his occupation within four months, and that the landlord, her husband, and son, do not possess any property other than the house in question anywhere in India. When called upon to file written statement of reply, the petitioner -tenant made an application to direct the landlord to disclose what other immovable property is he'd by her or her family members, whether they have actually vacated the public building, and if so, where she is residing now. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) THE impugned order does not appear to suffer from any vice in so far as the release application categorically stated that the landlord and her family members do not possess any other building anywhere else. Whether they possess any plot is not relevant. Similarly, irrelevant was whether they have actually vacated the public building and what alternative arrangement they have made for the present. Calling for such particulars and deciding the matter on the basis of the same would amount to defeat the legislative mandate of Section 21(1 -A), which has been enacted precisely to cover the case of a public servant who is due to vacate a public building on account of cessation of employment. In view of the unequivocal averments in the release application, there could be no impediment or handicap to the petitioner in filing the release application. The principles laid down in Jamaitrai Bishansarup v. Rai Bahadur Motilal Chamaria : A.I.R. 1960 Cal. 536 are hardly applicable in view of the facts stated above, where the intention of the petitioner was to get a roving enquiry made, without even discharging the elementary onus of filing a written statement and counter affidavit. The writ petition in the above circumstances, is devoid of merit, and is hereby dismissed in limine.