R. N. Aggarwal, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Shri S. V. Motwani has arisen in the following circumstances. The petitioner, S. V. Motwani was in the service of Central Government in the Ministry of works. Housing and Supply from 1942 to 1964. On 1st August, 1954, the petitioner was allotted a portion of requisitioned house No. 3 Maharjah Lane Delhi, while the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer, Delhi, State Division No. 1. C. P. W. D. , New Delhi, under the control of the Delhi Administration in 1959 the petitioner was transferred from the control of the Delhi Administration. On 14th September, 1959, the Delhi Administration vide letter dated 14th September, 1959, copy of which is Annexure R-1, required the petitioner to vacate the requisitioned premises No. 3, Maharajah Lane, within two months, on the ground that he had been transferred from the Delhi Administration and in accordance with the standing instructions of the Administration any person transferred from the Delhi Administration is not entitled to retain residential accommodation of the Administration. The petitioner did not vacate the premises within the time allowed and the Delhi Administration initiated proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, herein- after referred to as the Act. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi against the eviction proceedings, but his appeal was dismissed on 21st April, 1961. The petitioner vacated the premises, 3 Maharajah Lane. in May, 1961. On 24th November, 1966, the Delhi Administration served a notice on the peti. tioner requirirg him to pay a sum of Rs 1310. 05 p. being the difference in the rent which was paid by him and the rent which he was liable to pay under the Fundamental Rule 45-B. The petitioner was told that for the period he was in unauthorised occupation of the premises, he was liable to pay standard rent plus 3% of the departmental charges under Fundamental Rule 45-B. The petitioner represented to the Delhi Administration against this demand. The petitioner in his representation steted that he had already paid rent at 10% of his monthly salary and the additional demand of Rs 1310. 05 made by the Department was not legal. This representation of the petitioner was rejected and he was required to pay the sum of Rs. 1310. 05 within a fortnight. This amount was not paid by the petitioner and the amount was sought to be recovered from the petitioner through the Collector at Mathura as arrears of 1and Revenue.

( 2 ). The case of the petitioner is that there is no order under section 7 of the Act, for the recovery of Rs. 1310. 05 and the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue is illegal and without jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that this petition must succeed. The undisputed facts are that, the petitioner was allotted the requisitioned house No. 3, Maharajah Lane. The allotment of the said house in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Delhi Admisiraiion vide its letter dated 14th September, 1959. The petitiner was required to vacate the premises within two months failing which the petitioner was told proceedirgs for his eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, would be initiated. The petitioner did not vacate the premises within the time allowed and the Delhi A. d- ministration obtained orders for eviction of the petitioner under the Act. The petitioner vacated the premises in or about May, 1961. In 1966, the respondents required the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1310. 05 representing difference in the rent which was paid by him and which he was liable to pay under the Fandamantal Rule 45-B. The case of the respondents is that on failure of the petitioner to vacate the premises, after his a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document