Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Ms. Shobha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 4555 of 2019 & CM APPL. 20277 of 2019
Decided On : 11-05-2023
Subletting - Government Accommodation - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - S.R. 317-B-20 of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi), Rules 1963 - [IPC 188] - [PP Act] - [S.R. 317-B-20] - The court discussed the allegations of subletting of a government quarter and the cancellation of allotment, eviction order, and damages imposed on the petitioner. The court highlighted the lack of evidence of subletting of the actual government accommodation allotted to the petitioner and the failure to follow the Principles of Natural Justice by the Estate Officer. The court set aside the cancellation of allotment, eviction order, and damages imposed on the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was allotted a government quarter, which was later alleged to have been sublet. The petitioner denied the allegation and provided evidence of her bona fide use and occupation of the premises. The Estate Officer passed an eviction order against the petitioner, which was upheld by the District & Sessions Judge. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of subletting of the actual government accommodation allotted to the petitioner. The Estate Officer failed to follow the Principles of Natural Justice by not granting a fair hearing and not recording evidence. The court set aside the cancellation of allotment, eviction order, and damages imposed on the petitioner.
Issues: Allegations of subletting, cancellation of allotment, eviction order, damages imposed on the petitioner, failure to follow Principles of Natural Justice by the Estate Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no evidence of subletting of the actual government accommodation allotted to the petitioner. The Estate Officer failed to follow the Principles of Natural Justice by not granting a fair hearing and not recording evidence. The damages imposed on the petitioner were set aside.
Final Decision: The court set aside the cancellation of allotment, eviction order, and damages imposed on the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 19.11.2018 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge in PPA No. 161/2016. There is further prayer for setting aside the order dated 04.08.2014 issued by the Directorate of Estates, Govt. of India by which the allotment of government accommodation in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner has also challenged the eviction order dated 17.06.2015 passed by the ld. Estate Officer and the order of recovery of damages as per letter dated 11.01.2019 issued by the Directorate of Estates, Govt. of India.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was allotted government quarter no. 679, Sector 7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (Type-A), which was a one room accommodation. The said government quarter was allotted to the petitioner on 10.06.2011, by virtue of petitioner being in service under the District and Sessions Judge (HQ), New Delhi. The petitioner started living in the said accommodation along with her family and did not draw any House Rent Allowance (HRA) from the date of occupation of the said government quarter.
3. On 20.08.2013, a surprise check and door to door verification of tenants in govt. quarters was conducted by the officials of Police Station, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. During the said verification, it was found that the petitioner herein had unauthorizedly constructed one room with tin shed on the side of the quarter for subletting purpose. One person was found to be living there for last two years. Pursuant to this, F.I.R. dated 30.08.2013 under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 was registered in Police Station R.K. Puram. The matter was referred to National Lok Adalat, wherein the petitioner pleaded guilty. She was admonished by the Judge, Lok Adalat and matter was closed.
4. Subsequently, vide notice dated 17.01.2014, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why an order of cancellation of allotment should not be made against her in respect of the said government quarter on ground of subletting of the said government quarter. The said notice was duly responded to by the petitioner by specifically denying the allegation of subletting. Along with the reply, the petitioner also attached documents showing her bona fide use and occupation of the premises in question.
5. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.08.2014, the allotment of the government accommodation in question in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner was directed to vacate and handover full vacant possession of the premises.
6. Against the said cancellation order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Directorate of Estates, which was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2014.
7. After the rejection of the appeal of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Estate Officer on 22.12.2014, as per application of the Directorate of Estates dated 22.12.2014. Subsequently, by order dated 17.06.2015, the Estate Officer passed eviction order against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner continued to occupy the public premises even after her allotment was cancelled w.e.f. 04.08.2014.
8. Against the aforesaid eviction order dated 17.06.2015 passed by the Estate officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District & Sessions Judge being the Appellate Authority. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts by the impugned judgement dated 19.11.2018 in PPA No. 161/2016. Thus, the present writ petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that right from 10.06.2011 when the said quarter was allotted to the petitioner till 30.11.2018 when she surrendered the said premises to the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the petitioner stayed in the said premises along with her family.
10. As per the petitioner's case, the entire allegation of subletting of the said g
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the Principles of Natural Justice in quasi-judicial proceedings, the lack of evidence of subletting of the actual governm....
Mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises.
The cancellation of an allotment order without notice constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the order null and legally unsustainable.
Non-acceptance of prior accommodation offer does not exhaust right to one change if authority later grants allotment after scrutiny; cancellation without notice violates natural justice; prior allotm....
The retention of government accommodation was legally sanctioned, and the recovery of damage rent was deemed arbitrary and unlawful under constitutional principles and applicable laws.
The State Government exceeded its jurisdiction under the U.P. Rent Control Act by restoring a sub-letting order that contravenes established tenant rights, emphasizing the requirement that tenants oc....
The court established that the issuance of eviction notices under the Public Premises Act requires the Estate Officer to demonstrate prima facie satisfaction based on adequate material, and that publ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
