The allotment of government accommodation to a government servant is not temporary unless there is a specific indication to the contrary in the terms of the allotment or the rules subject to which it is made.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT had sued for eviction U/s 14 (1) (h) etc. Defence was that allotment was temporary and that is was a case of partial eviction as latrine in tenants occupation had been included. Landlord s case was that its user was not exclusive but comman. Tenant relied on some receipts in which latrine was mentioned. In 2nd appeal, it was held that for terms of tenancy Statement in rent receipt is not enough and more cogent proof was necessary. Para 6 onwards judgment is

( 2 ) IT was next contended that the allotment of a Government accommodation in favour of the appellant could not constitute a ground of eviction under Section H (1) (h) of the Act because the allotment was of a temporary nature intended to enable the appellant to have effective treatment of his son in the Safdarjang Hospital. Reliance for this contention was placed on Ex. Rl, which mentions that the accommodation in question had been sanctioned "on ad hoc basis on the ground of sickness of your son". Learned counsel for the appellant was, however, unable to show either with reference to the allotment rules or otherwise that such ad hoc allotment was intended to be a temporary arrangement. The dictionary meaning of the expression "ad hoc", on which reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant, does not fortify his contention either. According to Webster, "ad hoc" is for a "specific purpose" or "for the case only" meaning thereby that this was not intended to be a precedent for other cases but was an action taken in the peculiar circumstances of a particular case. The peculiar circumstances in which an allotment may be made to a Government servant are intended to justify an out-of-turn allotment but do not change the nature of the tenure or period for which the allotment would enure unless there is a specific indication to the contrary. SR. 317-B-9 of the Allotment of Government Residences, (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963 provides for an out-of-turn allotment to public servant on ground of serious illness of self or member of the family. There is, however, nothing in the rules which may justify the conclusion that an "ad hoc" allotment or an out-of turn allotment once made is any different from ordinary allotment of Government accommodation to a public servant. Once a Government servant is allotted Government accommodation, in the absence of anything to the countrary in the terms of the allotment or the rules subject to which it is made, the Government servant is entitled to stay in the premises until his retirement, resignation or removal, as the case may be. This contention must, therefore, be rejected.

( 7 ) LASTLY, it was contended that, inasmuch as the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, there has been no proper hearing of the appeal. Shri Bedi pointed out that he had appeared at the preliminary hearing of the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and was asked to formulate the points that arose in the appeal and after he had done that, the same was dismissed in limine although a detailed order was drawn up subsequently with the result that the appellant had been denied the reasonable opportunity of being heard. If the appeal was dismissed in limine even though by a reasoned order which was drawn up subsequently merely after the counsel had formulated the questions that arose for consideration in the appeal, and I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement of Shri Bedi, the grievance of the appellant would be justified. The statutory right of appeal is a matter of some importance. It is virtually a rehearing of the original cause end the right of the appellant, as indeed the power of the First Appellate Court, are plenary in nature. If such an appeal raised either question of law or of fact which deserved consideration, it should not ordinarily be dismissed in limine even though a reasoned order may be drawn up subsequently. In the case of Mahade v Tukaram Vetale and others v. Smt. Sugandha and another