Eviction orders under the Public Premises Act cannot be contested when no challenge was raised in prior proceedings, affirming that retention during deputation doesn't confer the right to continued occupation.

Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Writ petition challenging eviction order - Misconceived petition, treated as representation, where petitioner sought additional time to vacate premises - Court noted the absence of challenge against unauthorised occupation and affirmed earlier order. (Paras 2-6)

(B) CBI Allotment of Residences Rules (Revised), 1988 - Interpretation of rules concerning occupancy during deputation - Court clarified that rules provide no right to retain accommodation when on deputation, despite prior grace period given. (Paras 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having occupied accommodation after a granted retention period and being on deputation, sought further retention, arguing circumstantial necessity. The previous writ petition was disposed of without contesting the underlying eviction order.

Findings of Court:
The eviction order dated 15 October 2020 remains unchallenged; hence the petition fails.

Issues: Whether the petitioner’s occupancy post-retention period constituted unauthorised occupation and the binding nature of the previous court order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had no legitimate grounds to contest the eviction based on prior orders and findings. The petitioner's argument regarding silence in the rules was rejected, affirming that no right was conferred to retain occupancy while on deputation.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's grievances and past court submissions. (Para 2 , 3)
2. representation treated as valid request to general mandate. (Para 4 , 5)
3. interpretation of allotment rules regarding deputation. (Para 6)
4. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. (Oral)--This writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and clearly in abuse of the process of Court for reasons which follow.

2. Undisputedly, the order of 15 October 2020, which is impugned here, was questioned by the petitioner by preferring W.P.(C) 10727/2020. That writ petition came to be disposed of by a learned judge on 18 December 2020 in the following terms: -

"3 The petitioner's grievance is that the demand of roughly Rs.97,442/- along with interest @ 6.85% p.a. w.e.f. 2013 is an exorbitant amount which he cannot afford, therefore he would like the Department to reconsider its demand and accommodate his request. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since the petitioner was in the same station, therefore, on merits, he would be entitled to retain the said residential accommodation.

4 The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits, upon instructions, that there is an undertaking by the petitioner that he would vacate the premises by a certain date and indeed, it was expected of him to do so. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were compelling circumstances concerning the education of his daughter because of which he could not vacate the premises on the earlier indicate date. He was constrained to retain the accommodation for only three months more. The track record of the petitioner/officer is unblemished. He continues to serve the CBI diligently.

5 In the circumstances, let this petition be considered as the petitioner's representation by the respondent. He shall be heard within four weeks through counsel through video conferencing or through physical hearing, if so preferred. The Department's decision, shall be communicated to him promptly.

6 Till then, no precipitate measures shall be taken against the petitioner.

7 The petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed-off in the above terms."

3. A reading of that order clearly establishes that no challenge to the respondents having treated the petitioner as being in unauthorised occupation was urged or addressed. In fact a perusal of that order would reveal that the challenge to the orders passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was essentially given up and the only prayer addressed was for the respondents granting the petitioner further time to vacate the premises. The Court also took note of the admitted position that the petitioner despite having given an undertaking to vacate the premises in question, had admittedly failed to abide by that promise and assurance. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that the writ petition was disposed of with the Court accepting the submissions addressed on behalf of the petitioner providing that the same may be treated as a representation made by him. It was further provided that till the representation of the petitioner is decided, no precipitate action would be taken.

4. From the aforesaid recordal of facts, it is manifest that once that writ petition came to be decided and disposed of finally in light of the agreed position which was struck by parties before and in terms of the ultimate order passed by the Court, no right survives for a renewed challenge being raised with respect to the order of 15 October 2020.

5. The solitary issue which remains relates to the question of damages for the period of October 2013 to April 2014. The said period represents the period during which the petitioner remained in occupation of the subject premises after the retention period granted by the respondents. It becomes pertinent to note that the respondents had out of grace permitted the petitioner to retain the premises notwithstanding him having been sent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document