UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Vs. AJUDHYA PARKASH PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against whom suit for permanent injunction has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, Union Territory of Chandigarh from recovering rent of the house in question from the plaintiff at the rate of market rent, i.e. enhanced rent except the economic rent. The plaintiff filed the suit, alleging that he was allotted house No. 11-F/3937, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh on 10.8.1967. The job in which he was working was transferred to the Punjab State Federation of Consumers' Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd, Chandigarh, a semi-Government agency. The allotment of the said house was, thus, cancelled by the Estate Officer. On his representation to the Chief Commissioner, he allowed him to retain that house on payment of economic rent vide letter dated 19.10.1969, copy Ex.P-6. In pursuance of that order, he paid all the arrears of rent at the economic rate on 21.3.1969. Later on, to his surprise, he received a latter dated 29.1.1970 from the Accounts Officer, requiring him to pay the rent of the said house at the market rate of Rs. 145/- per month with effect from 1.1.1969. Thereafter he paid the rent for six months at the economic rate on 2.2.1970. Later on he vacated the house on 31.8.1972. When the respondent asked the plaintiff to deposit the arrears of rent as the market rate before 20.7.1974, the present suit was filed on 13.5.1975.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendant-appellant referred to certain rules regulating allotment of Government residences belonging to the pool of the Chandigarh Administration in Chandigarh, 1972. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff was not entitled to the said allotment which can only be made to a Government servant and since this fact was concealed by the plaintiff his allotment would stand cancelled automatically. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the plaintiff could not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong and was, thus, liable to pay the market rent of the premises which he occupied illegally, claiming himself to be a Government servant.