Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 792
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Laxmi Kanta Patra – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
IA No. CAN/1/2012 (Old No.: CAN/8439/2012) In WPA 7421 of 2022
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gobinda Chaudhuri, Adv., Mr. Bikash Chowdhury, Adv.
An allottee of government accommodation who has surrendered and vacated the premises and obtained a "no demand certificate" from the Estate Manager cannot be held liable to pay outstanding license fee for alleged illegal occupation of the premises.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 5(1) - RENTAL DUES - ALLOTTEE OF GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION - SURRENDER AND VACATION OF THE ALLOTTED PREMISES - NO DEMAND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ESTATE MANAGER - SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF THE NO DEMAND CERTIFICATE - NOTICE FOR PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING LICENSE FEE - CHALLENGE TO THE NOTICE - VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 5(1) OF THE PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a superannuated Group-D staff of the Foreign Trade Development Office, was allotted a Type II quarter in 1996. He surrendered and vacated the quarter in March 1998 and obtained a "no demand certificate" from the Estate Manager. However, the Assistant Estate Manager later withdrew the "no demand certificate" and demanded payment of outstanding license fee for the petitioner's alleged illegal occupation of the premises till November 2002. The petitioner challenged the demand notice, contending that he had already vacated the quarter and paid all dues.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had been able to prove that he surrendered his government quarter with effect from 1st March, 1998. Therefore the notice of demand of Rs.2,18,478/-towards the arrear of license fee cannot claimed against him.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had vacated the government quarter with effect from 1st March, 1998? 2. Whether the notice of demand of Rs.2,18,478/-towards the arrear of license fee was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles in reaching its decision: 1. The petitioner had submitted a "no demand certificate" issued by the Estate Manager, which indicated that he had no outstanding dues. 2. The petitioner had deposited the entire electric bill till February 1998 and obtained a certificate from the CPWD that he had no dues towards consumption of electricity. 3. The civil security department had taken delivery of possession of the flat from the petitioner and locked the door of the flat, indicating that the flat was under the control of the civil security department after March 1998.
Final Decision: The court quashed the notice dated 13th December, 2001 issued by the Foreign Trade Development Officer for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,18,478/-towards arrear of license fee including damages at market rate from the pension benefit of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
1. The petitioner has filed an instant writ petition praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind and/or quash the order of demand dated 18th November, 2011 issued by the Estate Manager and also commanding Foreign Trade Development Officer (FTDO), respondent No.4 herein not to release the alleged claim by the respondent No.2 from the salary or other monetary benefit of the petitioner.
2. Brief fact involved in the instant writ petition is as follows: the writ petitioner is a superannuated Group-D staff attached to the Foreign Trade Development Office controlled by the Union of India. He was allotted a Type II quarter being No.B-112 at Tollygunj Central Government Quarter on 22nd November, 1996. The petitioner took possession of the said quarter on the date of allotment and stayed there till 6th March, 1998. On 9th February, 1998 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Estate Manager expressing his willingness to surrender and vacate the said quarter with effect from 28th February, 1998. On 5th March, 1998 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Junior Engineer (Electrical) CPWD, Tollygunj Central Government Quarter Type II, Room No.B Flat No.112 requesting him to furnish electricity bill upto the month of February, 1998. On or about 19th March, 1998 electric consumption bill in the month of December 1997, January, 1998 and February 1998 was issued in favour of the petitioner and he paid the entire electric bill and thereafter surrendered and vacated possession of the said flat to the authority. On 16th March, 1998, the Foreign Trade Development Officer issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that the petitioner have already paid house rent till February 1998 which was deducted from his salary bill. As the petitioner paid house rent as well as electricity bill, the Estate Manager issued “no demand certificate” in favour of the petitioner on 27th January, 2020. Thereafter the petitioner handed over vacant possession of the flat in question in favour of the respondents.
3. After a lapse of about two years and ten months, the Assistant Estate Manager wrote a letter dated 9th October, 2002 informing the petitioner that “no demand certificate” issued in favour of him was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner has not vacated the said government accommodation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the Estate Manager on examination of the entire record, electricity bill etc. paid by the petitioner in respect of the said flat issued “no demand certificate”, the Assistant Estate Manager who is below the rank of the Estate Manager cannot quash the “no demand certificate” issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1998. It is also stated by the petitioner that after vacating the said quarter, civil security inspected the room on the same date and thereafter the said room was locked by the civil security and the petitioner delivered possession of the said flat putting his signature on the relevant register maintained by the CPWD. On 10th October, 2002 the Assistant Estate Manager demanded payment outstanding amount of Rs. 6,817/-in favour of the petitioner for his illegal occupation of the premises in question till November 2002 at the rate of Rs. 134 per month. On 18th January, 2003 the Estate officer issued a show-cause notice upon the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the petitioner had been continuing occupying the public premises, i.e. the said flat till 27th May, 2003 without payment of rent. He was directed to appear before the competent authority on 9th April, 2003. However on 18th June, 2003 the Estate Officer issued notice under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction Unauthorized Occupation) at to the petitioner. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the respondent No.2 knew that the petitioner surrendered the quarter with effect from 6th March, 1998 on payment of all statutory dues. O
