Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
Union of India - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Deepa Sharma - Respondent
W.P.(C) 248/2015
Decided On : 02-05-2016
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Advocate
Mr. Prakash Gautam, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of liability of legal heirs and legal representatives under Section 13(2) of the Public Premises Act, the requirement for compliance with the law, and the need for proper notice and adherence to the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Headnote:
Public Premises - Ministry of Defence Pool Accommodation - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Section 13 - The judgment discusses the application of the Public Premises Act, specifically Section 13, in a case involving unauthorized occupation of Ministry of Defence pool accommodation. The court highlights the limitations of liability of legal heirs and legal representatives under Section 13(2) and emphasizes the need for compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The judgment also addresses the issue of limitation for recovery proceedings under the Act and emphasizes the requirement for proper notice and compliance with the law. The court concludes that the appellate court's reasoned order should not be questioned under the writ jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the unauthorized occupation of Ministry of Defence pool accommodation by the husband of the respondent, leading to proceedings under the Public Premises Act. After the husband's death, the Estate Officer initiated proceedings against the legal heirs for recovery of damages for the unauthorized occupation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability of legal heirs and legal representatives is limited to the extent of the assets of the deceased in their hands, emphasizing the need for compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It also held that the claim for damages was time-barred and emphasized the requirement for proper notice and compliance with the law. The court concluded that the appellate court's reasoned order should not be questioned under the writ jurisdiction.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of legal heirs and legal representatives under Section 13(2) of the Public Premises Act, the application of limitation for recovery proceedings, and the compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the limitations of liability under Section 13(2) of the Public Premises Act, the requirement for compliance with the law, and the need for proper notice and adherence to the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the appellate court's order, emphasizing that no interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 22nd August, 2014 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi in PPA No.8/2014 whereby the Order dated 6th January 2014 passed by the Estate Officer of the petitioner was set aside.
2. Briefly recapitulating the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that late Cdr. S.K. Sharma, husband of the respondent herein, was allotted Ministry of Defence pool accommodation bearing No.D-II/274, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi while he was posted at Naval Headquarters w.e.f. 27th December, 1991. It is stated that on his posting out of Naval Headquarters to Mumbai w.e.f. 22nd June 1992 he was permitted to retain accommodation upto 31st March, 1993 on the ground of his children education.
3. It is stated that as per the Ministry of Defence Accommodation Rules the officer was required to vacate the accommodation by 31st March, 1993. The Officer unauthorisedly overstayed beyond the permissible period and hence was liable to be evicted from the public premises and charged damages for the period he overstayed in accordance with the provisions of Pubic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “PP Act”). It is stated that the flat was required by the respondent, widow of late Cdr. S.K. Sharma, who at that time was serving as Judge, Labour Court, Delhi and she requested to transfer the aforesaid accommodation in her name.
4. It is further stated that the matter was reported in the Estate Officer, Ministry of Defence for initiating action for eviction and charging of damages/ rent, however, the proceedings could not be progressed in view of an interim stay order dated 3rd May, 1993 by this Court wherein it was directed that penal rent should not be charged till further orders.
5. The respondent had filed a petition bearing W.P.(C) No.2250/93 for transfer of the Ministry of Defence accommodation No.D-II/274, Chanakya Puri in her name. Request for exchange of pool accommodation was made to the Department of Estates to explore the possibility of inter pool exchange of accommodation. However, the Department of General Pool Residential accommodation refused to inter change the flat and also clarified that the respondent was too junior to be allotted a Type-V accommodation.
6. It is stated that inspite of denial to permit the inter pool exchange, the respondent and her husband late Cdr. S.K. Sharma continued to occupy the Ministry of Pool accommodation over a long period of approximately thirteen years. It is further stated that after being posted back to Delhi w.e.f. April, 1994 to May, 2005 the husband of the respondent never applied for allotment of any accommodation of the Ministry of Defence Pool after 31st March, 1993. It is further stated that respondent’s husband was posted to Vishakhapatnam w.e.f. June, 2005 and was eligible for allotment of accommodation by Headquarter ENC, Vishakhapatnam. Thus the respondent has no reason to seek exchange of accommodation or retain the same accommodation to her husband’s posting to another station.
7. The writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.2250/93, filed by the respondent was partly allowed by this Court on 1st October, 2004 with certain directions. Pursuant to the order dated 1st October, 2004, the respondent made an application to the competent authority for transfer of the Ministry of Pool Accommodation in her name, which was duly forwarded by the then District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. However, no decision was taken by the competent authority. The respondent preferred an LPA No.1092/2004 which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 13th March, 2006.
8. The Ministry of Defence pool accommodation No.D-II/274, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi was vacated by husband of the respondent on 7th April, 2006. The Estate Office issued a show cause notice dated 10th October, 2006 to the husband of the respondent and pursuant to this notice, proceedings started
