PAWAN KUMAR Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOES the son have a right to the allotment of the house occupied by the father on the latter's retirement in spite of the fact that his own entitlement was for a lower category of house? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) A House No. 1522 -A, Sector 20, Chandigarh was initially allotted to Mr. Lajpat Rai who was working as an Accountant. He retired from service on April 30, 1991. A little prior to his retirement, on April 18, 1991, Mr. Lajpat Rai made a request to respondent No. 2 that his son, the present petitioner, may be allotted this house. On January 21, 1992, the respondent issued an order allowing the petitioner's father to retain the house on payment of double the standard rent till the allotment of an appropriate category of house to the petitioner. On September 10, 1992 the petitioner was allotted a 13 type house while his father was occupying a 12 type house. On September 15, 1992, the petitioner occupied it. However, the petitioner's father did not vacate the house in his possession. He continued to represent. Vide order dated September 16, 1993, he was informed that his request could not be accepted. When he did not vacate the house, proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 were initiated. Order of eviction was passed against him. He filed an appeal before the District Judge. It was, however, withdrawn on September 27, 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. He challenges the action of the respondents in not allotting House No. 1522 -A, Sector 20, Chandigarh and the order dated September 16, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P -7 by which it was held that Mr. Lajpat Rai was liable to vacate the house and pay penal rent at the rate of Rs. 1,140/ - per month as he was in unauthorised occupation with effect from September 27,1992.

(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard.