Equitable considerations cannot override the law, and mere payment of penal charges does not entitle an occupant to continue in government premises indefinitely.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 27th January, 2017 in PPA No.49/2016 of the Court of District & Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi] of dismissal of appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21st October, 2016 of the Estate Officer of the respondent Delhi Jal Board (DJB) of eviction of the petitioner from Quarter No. 37, Type-II, Okhla, Sewage Disposal Works, New Delhi.

2. The petition came up first before this Court on 17th March, 2017 when the counsel for the petitioner stated (i) that the petitioner is an erstwhile employee of DJB having retired from service on 31st May, 2014; (ii) that on the medical grounds of the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner was allowed to retain the government quarter aforesaid allotted to him by virtue of employment, for a period of four months with effect from 1st June, 2014 to 30th September, 2014; and, (iii) that the petitioner may be allowed another eight months to retain the quarter.

3. Though this Court, on 17th March, 2017 also was not in agreement with the proposal of the petitioner but perhaps, to grant some time, notice of the petition was issued and opportunity given to the respondent to file counter affidavit.

4. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time and counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Today morning, the counsel for the petitioner unilaterally mentioned the matter for adjournment and which was declined.

6. Now, when the matter is called on its turn, the counsel for the petitioner states that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from Colon Cancer and the petitioner is unable to vacate the quarter and the petition be adjourned.

7. Finding that the petitioner has already overstayed in the quarter by over four years, the adjournment sought is declined.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has argued (a) that the petitioner has paid the penal charges for occupation of the quarter till date; (b) that over 200 government quarters are either lying vacant or are being permitted to be misused and unauthorisedly let out and no action is being taken there against; (c) that Mr. Shekhar Kumar, who as an Estate Officer, passed the order of eviction of the petitioner, was not validly appointed as the Estate Officer and nothing has been shown to prove that his appointment as a Gazetted Officer was notified.

9. I have perused the order of the District Judge acting as the Appellate Authority under Section 9 of the PP Act.

10. The order dated 21st October, 2016 supra of the eviction of the petitioner records (i) that the petitioner herein was working as Oil Man in DJB and the quarter aforesaid was allotted to him by virtue of his employment; (ii) that the petitioner retired from the said employment on 31st May, 2014 on attaining the age of superannuation; (iii) that after retirement, the petitioner was granted retention w.e.f. 1st June, 2014 to 30th September, 2014; (iv) that on the request of the petitioner, further four months retention till 31st January, 2015 was granted with the direction to vacate the premises by 31st January, 2015 and hand over possession to DJB; it was also directed that allotment will automatically be cancelled from 1st February, 2015 if the petitioner failed to vacate the quarter even after expiry of the time granted till 31st January, 2015 and that after expiry of the said period, damages @ 40 times the normal licence fee per month shall also be levied and recovered; (v) that the petitioner has not vacated the quarter even after 31st January, 2015; (vi) that notices dated 20th February, 2015 and 18th March, 2016 were issued and the notice dated 18th March, 2016 was served on the petitioner on the same day; (vii) that the petitioner still neither vacated the premises nor submitted any reply; (viii) that