GIRDHARI LAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Girdhari Lal has filed the present civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for the quashment of the orders Annexure P-1 to P-4 against the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and the Secretary House Allotment Committee, respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he is working as a peon in the office of the Director of Industrial Training Haryana, Sector 17, Chandigarh and was allotted Govt. accommodation No. 2645-A, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh in the year 1971 and since then he is living in the said house. His brother-in- law Tilak Raj is staying with him. At the instance of one Hem Raj Sharma who is residing in House No. 2644-A, house allotted to the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No. 2 on the grounds that the petitioner had sublet the house in dispute to his brother-in-law Tilak Raj without ascertaining the real facts. According to the petitioner, his brother-in-law Tilak Raj is a young man of 20 years and is unmarried and is living with the petitioner in the said house. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that the petitioner has sub-let the house in question in favour of his brother-in-law. The Secretary, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh cancelled the allotment vide orders dated 27.3.1984 on the ground that the petitioner had sublet the Govt. accommodation to Tilak Raj. The petitioner gave reply to the said letter and it was categorically averred that the petitioner is living in the said house and he had not parted with possession in favour of any one much less the question of subletting does not arise in favour of Tilak Raj who was living temporarily with the petitioner as his brother-in-law. This objection of the petitioner was not considered by the House Allotment Authority and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence to establish his plea. Resultantly, order Annexure P-1 was passed which according to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, mala fide and void on the ground that the petitioner never parted the possession of the quarter to his brother-in-law who was residing with him temporarily being the brother of his wife. The petitioner along with his wife and children is still occupying the Govt. accommodation and he is in exclusive possession. On the basis of the orders Annexure P-1, orders Annexure P-2 were passed by the Estate Officer while exercising the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, who issued a notice under section 4(1) of the said Act. Thereafter, final orders were passed vide Annexure P-3 and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who also dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 17.5.1985 Annexure P-4. According to the petitioner, a person will be considered to be unauthorised occupant only if he in breach of his allotment letter sublets any portion of the same or commits contravention of the terms of the allotment. In the present case, the petitioner has not committed any contravention. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of argument that Tilak Raj is sub-tenant of the petitioner still the occupation of the petitioner with regard to the quarter allotted to him would not be considered as unauthorised in view of the provisions of the Public Premises Act. With the above averments, the petitioner has prayed for the quashment of the orders Annexures P-1 to P-4.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. No written statement has been filed on the record.