The central legal point established in the judgment is the temporary nature of the allotment and the petitioner's obligation to vacate the premises after his medical condition improved.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. - This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

'a) To satisfying the proceedings of notice no 3w/1320/11/1/org dated 09 april 2021 and 16 april 2021 issued by the estate officer to evict the Petitioner from the quarter SMQ No.31- D Old Pinto Park air Force Station Delhi cantonment area New-Delhi-110010.

b) To call up Ld. Trial Court record pertaining to the impugned judgment 01.04.2021.

c) To stay the proceedings in the aforesaid matter till the proceedings of the aforesaid notice of the Estate Officer in the said matter till the Petitioner is allotted a suitable Quarter by the 13 BRD as per his status.'

2. The petition has evidently come to be preferred after the culmination of proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) act, 1971 [act]. The record bears out that the allotment of the quarter in question was cancelled by the respondents and an order of eviction framed. Since the petitioner failed to vacate the premises, the Estate Officer proceeded to pass an order of eviction on 11 September 2017. That order was challenged by the petitioner here by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the act which has come to be dismissed on 01 april 2021. It becomes relevant to note that the orders passed in proceedings under the act have neither been questioned nor assailed by the petitioner here.

3. Insofar as the backdrop in which the quarter came to be allotted to the petitioner is concerned, it becomes pertinent to note that, taking into consideration the medical ailment of the petitioner, the respondents on humanitarian grounds had made an allotment in his favour on 25 September 2013. Since the petitioner was undergoing treatment at that time, the allotment was continued upto 24 September 2016. Since the petitioner failed to hand over vacant possession after September 2016, notices were issued calling upon him to either apply for extension of permission to retain the premises if the same be based on cogent medical grounds or to vacate the same. Pursuant to those notices, the petitioner submitted an application on 06 October 2016 for being permitted to continue to occupy the premises. The said application was duly considered by the Senior Medical Officer [SMO] who upon consideration of the medical reports which were produced, proceeded to observe that his condition had improved and that he would only be required to go for periodical check-ups as an outpatient at the Safdarjung Hospital. Based on the aforesaid assessment, the respondents came to conclude that their existed no justification for permitting the petitioner to retain the premises in question.

4. Ultimately and in light of the aforesaid opinion as formed by the Senior Medical Officer, the petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises on 21 October 2016. Since he failed to do so, the respondents proceeded to cancel the allotment and initiate proceedings for eviction. Undisputedly, the allotment was cancelled in terms of the communication of 31 May 2017. The said order has, thereafter, culminated in the passing of a final order of eviction under the act on 11 September 2017. That order has been affirmed by the District Judge in appeal. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner are liable to be evaluated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is still undergoing treatment and therefore the action of the respondents in proceeding to cancel the allotment is wholly arbitrary. It was her further submission that the respondents have also not placed on the record any material which may establish a situation where there is an imperative need of the present quarter which is in the possession of the petitioner. according to learned counsel, there are still various quarters and units of accommodation which are vacant and thus there was no justification for the petitioner being required to vacate.

6. The Court notes t