The assessment of damages under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 must comply with the statutory provisions, including Rule 8 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971. The Estate Officer has the jurisdiction to assess damages, and the assessment is not bound by the Department of Estates' computation.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. - CM aPPL. 47493/2021(for exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 15053/2021, CM aPPL. 47492/2021(Stay)

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of 19 March 2021, passed by the appellate authority upholding the quantification of damages assessed as payable by the petitioner by the Estate Officer in terms of the order of 22 September 2020 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1971 [the act]. While passing the impugned order, the appellate authority has accorded relief to the petitioner to the extent of requiring the adjustment of the House Rent allowance which had been deducted while she worked under the respondents. Since the appeal preferred by the petitioner to that extent has been allowed, it only leaves the issue of the validity of the assessment and quantification of damages to be essentially considered by the Court.

2. admittedly, the premises in question had been allotted to the husband of the petitioner who was employed as a Director in the Ministry of Defense. The said allottee died on 15 February 2012. In terms of the policy which stood in place, the petitioner was permitted to retain the official accommodation for a period of two years. The petitioner who herself was employed as a Chief Prosecutor in the office of the Directorate of Prosecution, had sought the grant of the facility of 'inter pool exchange', that prayer was denied by the respondents. Despite no permission having been granted to her to retain the accommodation in question post February 2014, she undisputedly continued to retain the accommodation. Ultimately proceedings for her eviction were drawn and a final order under Section 4 of the act was passed on 29 July 2015. That order was affirmed in appeal and the challenge to those orders by way of a writ petition also failed with this Court dismissing the writ petition preferred by her on 11 July 2019. That only left the issue of quantification of damages for the period during which the petitioner retained possession of the official accommodation unauthorisedly.

3. The Estate Officer by the order of 22 September 2020, had proceeded to assess the quantification of damages by invoking the 'telescopic method' as embodied in the Office Memorandum of 7 September 2016 [the O.M.] issued by the Directorate of Estates. The Estate Officer did not accept the assessment of damages made by the Department of Estate noting that they had employed the market rates applicable to andrews Ganj Extension when in fact the premises was situate near Defense Colony/ansal Plaza and therefore liable to be quantified bearing in mind the higher market rates which prevailed there. aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which has come to be partly allowed in terms of the order impugned here and dated 19 March 2021. It becomes pertinent to note that while the objection of the petitioner in respect of non-adjustment of HRa has been accepted by the appellate authority, the quantification in other respects and based upon the O.M., has been upheld.

4. assailing the above, Mr.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the quantification of damages based on the O.M., is clearly violative of provisions made in Rule 8 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 [the Rules] . It was further contended that the Department of Estates had held the petitioner liable to pay the damages to the extent of Rs.19,000/- alone. according to Mr. Sharma, the damages as computed and reflected in the order impugned are wholly arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel contends that the Estate Officer was bound to assess damages strictly in accordance with Rule 8 and by employing the telescopic method as contemplated under the O.M., a manifest illegality has been committed.

5. While Mr. Sharma has also placed reliance upon the decisions rendered i