BAROUNDEB HARISADAN MUKERJEE Vs. HOUSE ALLOTMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARISADAN Mukerjee was a government servant, He was occupying as tenant a block in a chawl situated in Gaddigudam locality within the corporation limits of city of Nagpur. The property was owned by the trust known as Hasnte Burhaniyah Fidyah Trust. He died some time in the year 1958 leaving behind Baroundeb (petitioner No. 1) and Raman (petitioner No. 2) as the sons and three daughters, as legal heirs. Baroundeb is aged 48 years and is in the employment with Steel Authority of India Limited as deputy manager presently posted at Durgapur, Raman is aged 38 years and is in the employment of Geological Survey of India, presently posted at Jaipur. All these brothers and sisters are married and live separately at different places. Baroundeb left Nagpur and joined service some time in the year 1968 and Raman some time in the year 1974 -75. One Sudhansu Banerjee, the brother -in -law of the petitioners, occupied the premises for some years and presently it is locked and unused and only the skeleton furniture like a cot, a chair and a table is lying inside. The landlord is receiving the rent and the receipts are still being passed in the name of the deceased Harisadan. The tenancy is not yet determined,

(2.) COULD under these circumstances the House Allotment Officer in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 28 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, ('the Rent Control Order' for short) validly pass an order of allotment? Answer to this question must depend upon whether it can be said that the block has become 'vacant' as contemplated under Clause 24. Now every point has to be judged against the factual background of the case in which it arises and every word in statute has to be interpreted in the context in which it is used, considering the object sought to be achieved by the relevant legislation. First of all, the proved and undisputed facts in somewhat more details.

(3.) IN the enquiry the petitioner No. 1 Baroundeb entered into witness -box and stated that his father was living in the house since before 1935. He further stated that he had given his permanent house address at Nagpur and that the block was presently occupied by the legal heirs. In the cross -examination, he admitted that all the sisters are married and are separate, and the petitioner is in permanent Government service at present posted at Durgapur and Raman was also in permanent Government service and at present posted at Jaipur. The following portion of his statement in cross -examination is to the point: The conclusion that none of our brothers and sisters are residing in the suit premises is partly correct and partly incorrect. I say it incorrect. Because we are serving people subject to transfers.