2007 Supreme(Mad) 2542
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA
R. Uma
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Dept.
Writ Petition No.30842 of 2004
Decided On : 14-08-2007
For the Petitioner:N. Illayraja, Advocate. For the Respondent:R1 & R4, N. Senthil Kumar, Government Advocate, R2 & R3, R. Giri Rajan, Advocate.
Liability to pay rent for government quarters is based on the period of actual occupation and the terms of allotment, and does not extend to subsequent periods when the quarters are re-allotted to other individuals.
Headnote:
Rent Dispute - Government Quarters Allotment - Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act - [Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, Sections 1-10] - The court discussed the allotment of government quarters to a petitioner, the conditions of allotment, and the liability to pay rent for different quarters. The court highlighted the petitioner's liability to pay rent for the quarters occupied and the period of allotment, and set aside the demand for rent for a subsequent period when the quarters were allotted to another person.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, was allotted different quarters by the State Government and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A dispute arose regarding the payment of rent for the allotted quarters.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was liable to pay rent for the quarters occupied and the period of allotment, but set aside the demand for rent for a subsequent period when the quarters were allotted to another person.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's liability to pay rent for the government quarters allotted to her, including the period of allotment and subsequent periods when the quarters were re-allotted to other individuals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was liable to pay rent for the period of actual occupation of the quarters and the period of allotment, but not for the subsequent period when the quarters were re-allotted to another person.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside the demand for rent for the subsequent period when the quarters were re-allotted to another person, and directed the petitioner to pay rent for the periods of actual occupation and allotment.
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the proceedings contained in letter No: Aa.Va.B. 8/23472/2002 dated 28th July 2004 by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit the rent for quarters No: J 29 for the period from 29.05.2002 to 210. 2003. As the case may be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one.
2. Petitioner, who is a Government servant, was allotted quarters No: X 22 in Fore Short Estate, Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028, under TNGRHS Scheme. The petitioner occupied the said quarters. But being not satisfied with it, she requested for change of quarters. Having accepted such prayer, the respondent State re-allotted Apartment No: J – 29 by Government Letter No: 14762/HB3(1)/2002-I dated 29th May, 2002. The following conditions were stipulated therein:
"1. Petitioner to pay the rent for the quarters allotted under this order from the date of allotment of the said order i.e. 29.05.2002;
2. Petitioner will immediately vacate the quarters which she was occupying; Till she vacates the earlier quarters, she will not only pay the rent of the quarters subsequently allotted, but also pay the rent of the quarters already under occupation and
3. In case, she is not inclined to accept the re-allotment, then she will have to pay rent till the said quarters is re-allotted to some other person; "
By the said order, some other quarters were also allotted in favour of one or the other employee, with the same conditions.
3. The petitioner, having not satisfied with the allotment of Quarters No: J 29, requested for re-allotment of another quarters. The State Government accepted such prayer and by an order dated 4th July, 2002, it changed the allotment and re-allotted the quarters RD No: 16 to the petitioner. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, vide their letter No: Aa.Va.B.3-4/35039/2001 dated 16th July, 2002 communicated the said order to the petitioner with the following conditions:
" 1. Petitioner must vacate quarters No: X - 22 within 22.07.2002;
2. She will pay the rent for Quarters No: RD 16 with effect from 04.07.2002 i.e. the date on which the Government Order is issued.
.3. For the quarters which was in her occupation, she must pay rent till it is re-allotted to other person. ...."
.There are some other conditions also. But they are irrelevant for determination of the present case.
.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charging of rent for the same period in respect of two quarters is illegal particularly when the petitioner has not occupied Quarters No: J 29 at any point of time. In the writ petition, it is also alleged that the living condition at Quarters No: X 22 as also at Quarters No: J 29 was not upto the standard. But, the respondents have disputed the same.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board referred to different letters of allotment and the conditions prescribed therein and submitted that the petitioner is bound to obey the condition of allotment, it having been mentioned that the petitioner was asked to pay the rent for Quarters No: J 29 from the date of allotment i.e. 29.05.2002 till the said quarters is re-allotted in favour of some other person. In the present case, the quarters No: J 29 having been allotted to other person on 210. 2003, the petitioner is liable to pay rent for the period from 29.05.2002 to 27.07.2003 apart from 36 months rent for Quarters No: X 22, which was in his occupation.
6. We have noticed the rival contentions made by the parties and perused the relevant order issued by the State Government and Housing Board from time to time.
7. The petitioner having actually occupied the Quarters No: X 22 for a period of about 36 months and having vacated the said quarters and taken possession of Quarters No: RD 16 on 16th July, 2002, she is liable to pay rent of Quarters No: X 22 for such 36 months on and from 16th July, 2002. She