(1.) The petitioner was allotted half portion of House No. 1343 A, Type 11 JD in Section 20-B, Chandigarh. The other half was in possession of respondent No. 6 who was transferred from Chandigarh in May 1983 to Patiala. He could retain the house at Chandigarh for two months but was given extension for the maximum period of six months per-missible under the rules. Thereafter his possession was declared that of an unauthorised occupant and proceedings were taken to eject him under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Before his ejectment, he was transferred back to Chandigarh where he joined on December 19, 1985. In view of the changed circumstances, the Chandigarh Administration regularised his occupation of the said house vide Annexure P-9, dated January 22, 1986. The petitioner claiming that he was entitled to the allotment of half portion of the house being already occupant of the other half has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the said order, Annexure P-9.
(2.) As is evident from the facts stated above, the occupation of respondent No. 6 of the half portion of the house in dispute was unauthorised for the last more than two years and on his retransfer to Chandigarh he could not be given any preferential treatment under any provision of the rules. The allotment could be made to him only on his turn. If respondent No. 6 had vacated the house, he would not have been entitled to any preferential treatment on his re-transfer to Chandigarh. Simply because he continued to remain in unauthorised occupation of the house in dispute, he could not be given any preference in the allotment of the residential accommodation to him. The petitioner being the occupant of the other half portion of the house has a preferential right to the allotment of the portion in dispute under the rules.
(3.) This petition is consequently allowed with costs and the impugned order, Annexure P-9, quashed. The costs are assessed at Rs. 5000/- .