BIMALENDU MAZUMDER Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner vacated the quarter in the year 1991. However, the petitioner's previous wife is forcefully occupying the flat in question. The respondent authorities did not take possession intentionally but withhold the service benefits of the writ petitioner. He also submits that even in spite of giving information that the petitioner has surrendered the flat, the respondent authorities have allowed the previous wife to stay in the flat. He again submits that a divorce was granted by an appropriate Court but subsequently, stay was granted by the appeal Court. The respondent authorities allowed the estranged wife of the writ petitioner to stay and occupy the government premises, although, she is not an authorised occupant. He also submits that the respondent authorities are armed with provisions of law to remove an unauthorised occupant but no steps were taken to remove the estranged wife of the writ petitioner deliberately. Learned Counsel for the respondent authorities submits that the flat was allotted to the writ petitioner but the flat is under occupation of the first wife of the writ petitioner since 1991. He submits that this Court should grant leave to take appropriate action against the unauthorised occupant, being the first wife of the writ petitioner. He then wanted to cite a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, although facts are different.

(2.) Considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on records, it is evident that the writ petitioner was allotted the flat which he surrendered in 1991 with an information that he is not willing to occupy the flat. However, any effort on the side of the petitioner to get the flat vacated, would attract penal consequences and it is not impossible that the petitioner may be subjected to criminal prosecution and he may also be put behind the bars. Even for this reason he may have to loose his job. Therefore, petitioner does not have any other alternative but to inform the authorities to take steps.

(3.) Moreover, the question is unauthorised occupancy by the person who was not allotted the flat, which is under no circumstances justifiable. Since it is a Government property and no person can occupy it unauthorisedly, it is for the respondent who are to take steps for vacating the flat. But in this case the respondents did not take any action although there are provisions of law for eviction of unauthorised occupants. The estranged wife has no right to occupy the flat when his husband had surrendered the flat in question. Further the wife also cannot claim any sigh of residence in a flat which the husband is not the owner.