SURAJ RAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE stand of the respondents is that petitioner did not hand over vacant possession of the said quarter and it is illegally occupied by him. Petitioner was directed to file an affidavit annexing specific proof of handing over vacant possession of the said quarter, which he did not file. By order dated 28.11.2007, this Court ordered for an inspection in presence of the parties. The inspection report has been filed with the affidavit dated 11.1 .2008 in which it has been found that petitioner has inducted his son, namely, Dharamnath Rai in the said quarter and petitioner has constructed an unauthorized room adjacent to it and is residing there.

(3.) IN the circumstances, petitioner is liable to pay penal rent and even on payment of penal rent he cannot be allowed to occupy the Government quarter. If he is allowed to continue, no government quarter will be vacated. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact the market rent is much higher even than the penal rent.