The Rajya Sabha Secretariat is not a government body under the Civil Procedure Code, thus no notice under Section 80 was necessary for the appellant's suit.

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. - By way of the present appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (a) and (w) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), the appellant impugns order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CS No.151/2023 titled Raghav Chadha vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, whereby the learned Trial Court has recalled order dated 18.04.2023 made by it, thereby vacating an ad-interim order granted in favour of the appellant; and also thereby returning the plaint for presentation after compliance of section 80(1) CPC.

2. Impugned order dated 05.10.2023 was passed on a review application filed by the defendant/respondent under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, seeking review of order dated 18.04.2023 by which the learned Trial Court had, on an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, granted to the appellant ad-interim protection against being dispossessed from Bungalow No. AB-5, Pandara Road, New Delhi, without due process of law. By order dated 18.04.2023, the learned Trial Court had also issued notice to the respondent/defendant on an application filed by the appellant under section 80(2) of the CPC.

Brief Facts

3. A brief conspectus of the relevant factual matrix of the case is as follows :

3.1. The appellant was allotted Bungalow No. AB-5, Pandara Road, New Delhi (subject bungalow) as official accommodation in his capacity as a Member of the Rajya Sabha. The subject bungalow is a Type-VII accommodation that was allotted to the appellant in exchange for Bungalow No. C-1/12, Pandara Park, New Delhi, which was a Type-VI accommodation. The allotment was made vide letter dated 08.09.2022 by the Rajya Sabha, upon a representation dated 29.08.2022 made by the appellant, citing certain reasons for seeking upgradation of his allotted accommodation from Type-VI to Type-VII.

3.2. The appellant took physical possession of the subject bungalow on 09.11.2022 and has been residing there along with his senior-citizen parents and his sister ever since. For completeness, it may be mentioned that the House Committee of the Rajya Sabha, that deals with the official accommodation provided to its members, has also ratified the allotment of the subject bungalow on 24.11.2022.

3.3. There is no dispute that the appellant continues to be a Member of the Rajya Sabha, though, for certain reasons which have no concern with the present matter, he is presently under suspension from the House.

3.4. The genesis of the dispute is letter dated 03.03.2023, received by the appellant from the Director, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, effectively cancelling the allotment of the subject bungalow; and instead allotting to the appellant a Flat bearing No. 501 along with Servants Quarters Nos. 17 & 18 at SWAJAS Deluxe, New Delhi as his regular accommodation.

3.5. The aforesaid cancellation led to the appellant filing a suit before the learned Trial Court seeking reliefs essentially against dispossession or interference in his use and physical possession of the subject bungalow, pursuant to letter dated 03.03.2023 which he claimed was as illegal, non-est and void ab-initio. Apart from that the appellant also sought the ancillary and consequential relief of restraining the defendant from allotting the subject bungalow to any other person, w