ORDER: The revision petitioner, unable to sustain the order of eviction passed against the respondent, under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, hereinafter called ‘the Act’, has filed this revision petition.

2. The respondent, by name Thiru Manuneedhicholan was working as Deputy Director (Inspection), Office of the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs at Chennai. On his request, when he was the Assistant Registrar, the quarters bearing door No.F-6 Type-IV, Bazullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017, was allotted to him, as per the order dated 4.3.1992. On 27.9.1996, the respondent was transferred out of Chennai and in view of the same, the license granted to the respondent, for the occupation of the premises was terminated, as per the rules, on 27.11.1996. Thereafter, on his representation, that his children are studying and he is entitled to retain the quarters, till the academic year, the respondent was permitted to retain the premises, on educational grounds, for six months, which period came to an end on 27.5.1997. Even after the expiry of the said period, the respondent did not vacate the premises and therefore, he was treated and labeled as “unauthorised occupant” and on that basis, eviction proceedings were initiated under Sec.5 of the Act. The respondent, who had been transferred to Mumbai, went on study leave, with effect from 1.8.1997 to 31.7.1998. The authorities concerned, having granted study leave, fixed his head quarters at Chennai. When he was on study leave, his request for regularisation of the quarters was negatived. Thereafter, he was transferred to Madras and continued to occupy the quarters without authorisation. Under the above said circumstances, labeling this respondent as “unauthorised occupant”, an eviction order came to be passed.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the eviction, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Principal Judge, Chennai. The eviction order originally passed was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing.

4. As per the direction of the Principal Judge, Chennai, de novo proceedings were initiated and finally, the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction under Sec.5 of the Act on 20.10.1999, treating the respondent as “unauthorised occupant”, directing him to pay damages of Rs.4,672 per month, with further directions to pay the arrears up to 31.5.2002 amounting to Rs.1,55,640, and to refund the wrongful drawal of H.R.A. from 23.9.1997 to 30.11.1997 and from March, 1998 to 8.12.1998. The respondent aggrieved by the eviction order dated 20.10.1999, challenged the same in C.M.A.No.182 of 1999 before the Principal Judge, Chennai, which was allowed on the ground, that a Government Servant transferred during the middle of the academic year, is entitled to retain the accommodation, till the end of the academic year and therefore, the respondent cannot be evicted, further observing that the HRA drawn against the rules, could be recovered by the head of the department, by taking appropriate action, to recover the same, which is under challenge in this revision.

5. Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr.V.T.Gopalan appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.K.Moorthy.

6. The learned Additional Solicitor General submits, that the occupation of the premises by the respondent, after the permission granted up to 27.5.1997, on educational ground, is an unauthorised one and in this view, he is liable to be evicted under the Act, which was done by the officer concerned legally, based upon the rulings of the Apex Court, which is unnecessarily disturbed by the learned Principal Judge, Chennai and in this view, it requires setting aside, restoring the order of eviction.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent opposing the above submission would contend, that the respondent was permitted to occupy the quarters on educational grounds and thereafter, when his head quarters was fixed during the study leav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document