Judgment M.P.Varma, J. 1. The Registrar of High Court, Patna has moved this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 15-11-1983, passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate-cum-competent authority under the Bihar Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 (for brevity to be referred as Premises Act), in Eviction Case No. 70/ 1983. 2. Short facts relating to the case are as follows:- - The Government of Bihar in the Department of Public Works by an order dated 28th October, 1967, contained in office letter No. GBDI- 2048/67 26212G Pat. (vide annexure 1) created a pool of fourteen residential quarters in the capital town of Patna. The quarters were placed at the disposal of Hon ble the Chief Justice of Patna High Court for allotment to the Hon ble Judges of this Court and to the Registrar of the High Court. In the order it was said that all the fourteen quarters were meant for the use and occupation only of the Judges of the High Court. It was further stipulated therein that if any quarter is to be withdrawn from the pool, it would be done only after consultation with the Hon ble the Chief Justice and not otherwise. Sri. C. N. Tiwary (respondent No. 2) was appointed as a Registrar of the Patna High Court and quarter No. 3, Macdonel Road (which is a quarter in the pool) was allotted to him by Hon ble the Chief Justice for his occupation. Sri Tiwary was raised to the Bench of this Court and the Hon ble the Chief Justice permitted him to continue in occupation of the same residence. Sri Tiwary remained in occupation of this quarter as a Judge of the Patna High Court and continued to occupy the same subsequently as an ad hoc Judge of the Court on the basis of the allotment made to him earlier by Hon ble the Chief Justice Sri Tiwary retired as a Judge of this Court on 31-7-1979. His term of appointment as an ad hoc Judge also expired on 20-7-1983. Sri Tiwary even after the expiry of his term of office as a Judge of the High Court, did not vacate the quarter in question and still continues to occupy the same. His term of appointment as an ad hoc Judge also expired on 20-7-1983. Sri Tiwary even after the expiry of his term of office as a Judge of the High Court, did not vacate the quarter in question and still continues to occupy the same. 3 Under the orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice, the writ petitioner wrote to Sri Tiwary intimating that he was permitted to remain in occupation of the quarter till 30th of September, 1983 and informed him that since the allotment of the residence was cancelled by Hon ble the Chief Justice, Sri Tiwary was requested to vacate the same, failing which he would be liable for payment of penal rent for the period till he holds the residence unauthorisedly. Sri Tiwary, did not vacate the quarter, in spite of the allotment being cancelled The Registrar i.e. the writ petitioner filed an application to the competent authority under the Premises Act "(in this case the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna) requesting to take action against Sri Tiwary for getting the quarters vacated. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, by his order, dated 15-11-1983 (the order impugned, vide Annexure 6 held that it was not within the competence of Hon ble the Chief Justice to cancel the allotment of the quarters made to Sri. Tiwary and that there being no order of cancellation by any competent authority under the Premises Act, he refused to interfere with the application filed before him by the Registrar. The Registrar has now moved this Court for quashing of the orders impugned and for issuance of a writ of certiorari commanding upon the Sub-divisional Magistrate to -take suitable action as permissible under the Premises Act for getting the quarters vacated by Sri Tiwary. 4. The only question, which arises for consideration by this Court is whether the Hon ble the Chief Justice at this Court is a competent authority to make allotment of quarters to the Hon ble Judges of this Court, given in the pool of the High Court and whether in the circumstances as arising in this case, may cancel allotment and ask the authority concerned to get the same vacated. 5. 5. True it is that the High Court Judges Rules 1956 speakes that for the purpose of getting a residential quarters, each Judge of the High Court, who avaits himself of the use of an official residence shall be entitled for the same without payment of rent. The Judge getting quarters shall remain in occupation throughout the tenure of his office and for a period of one month from the date of his retirement as a Judge. It is the admitted case that Sri Tiwary-respondent No. 2 was allotted the aforesaid quarters, i. e., No. 3, Macdonel Road while he was appointed Registrar of this Court. It is also not in dispute that Sri Tiwary was permitted to remain in occupation of the same when he was appointed as a Judge of this Court. It is also admitted that it was communicated to him through the writ petitioner that Hon ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to cancel the allotment after the expiry of the period of Sri Tiwarys tenure of office and the period permitted to him by the Hon ble the Chief Justice to remain in occupation till 30th of September, 1983. Since Sri Tiwary did not vacate the quarters even after cancellation of the allotment. Hon ble the Chief Justice having no alternative asked the Registrar of the Court to file eviction case before the Competent Authority under the Bihar Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956. The Sub-divisional Magistrate refused to interfere solely on the ground that the allotment of the quarters should have been cancelled only by a competent authority in the- Public Works Department and not by Hon ble the Chief Justice. Sri Shiv Kirti Singh appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that the State Government in letter dated 28th of October, 1967 (referred to above) created a pool of fourteen residential quarters and placed the same at the disposal of Hon ble the Chief Justice, but never parted with the ownership of the quarters in question. Hon ble the Chief Justice at no time, has been authorised to cancel an allotment. Hon ble the Chief Justice at no time, has been authorised to cancel an allotment. It has also been stated that Sri Tiwary has retired as a Judge of this Court but nontheless, he continues to be a Government servant, as, after retirement be has been appointed as a Chairman of the Bihar State Legal Aid Board and it is beyond the jurisdiction of Hon ble the Chief Justice to ask Sri Tiwary for vacation of the quarters. 6. Sri R. B. Mahto appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has submitted that it is admitted position that quarters were placed at the disposal of Hon ble the Chief Justice and it was the Hon ble the Chief Justice of this Court, who had allotted the quarters to Sri Tiwary and in the given situation, the competent authority for cancelling the allotment wag the Hon ble the Chief Justice and Hon ble Chief Justice alone. It has been submitted that the Sub-divisional Magistrate failed to appreciate the facts and law involved and committed grave error in disposing of the application of the Registrar without interfering in the matter. The position appears very clear. The allotment of quarters of 3, Macdonel Road was made to Sri Tiwary by Hon ble the Chief Justice while Sri Tiwary was appointed as Registrar of the Court The Government of Bihar in the Department of Public Works had placed this quarters and other quarters at the disposal of the Hon ble the Chief Justice. The State Government therefore, did not allot the quarters in question to Sri Tiwary. 7. According to Clause (g) of Sec.2 of the Premises Act unauthorised occupation means the occupation of Government premises either without an allotment or after the expiry of one month from the date on which an allotment is cancelled under Sec.3 and if any Government premises is required for any public purpose, the competent authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, cancel the allotment, under which such premises, is held or occupied by a person. The High Court Judges Rules, which has been quoted above, also speaks that a sitting Judge of a Court is entitled to avail himself to the use an official residence throughout the term of his office and for a period of one month immediately thereafter and not beyond. The High Court Judges Rules, which has been quoted above, also speaks that a sitting Judge of a Court is entitled to avail himself to the use an official residence throughout the term of his office and for a period of one month immediately thereafter and not beyond. In the instant case Sri Tiwary retired op 31-7-1979, and his last term as an ad hoc Judge of this Court also expired on 20-7-1983. Normally Sri Tiwary should have vacated the quarters on 19-8-1983. However, in the instant case Sri Tiwary was permitted by Hon ble the Chief Justice to remain in occupation of the residence till 30th of September, 1983 and it was only on 4th of October, 1983 that a communication was made to him intimating about the cancellation of the allotment. Since Sri Tiwary was permitted to remain in occupation only till 30th of September, 1983, his further continuance in the residence, for all practical purposes, must be deemed to he an unauthorised occupation, more so, when the order of cancellation was communicated to him through the writ petitioner, i.e. the Registrar of this Court. 8. Sec. 4 of the Premises Act lays down that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, if the competent authority is satisfied that any person is in unauthorised occupation of the premises may, by notice served on him, order that the person in occupation shall vacate the premises within fifteen days of the date of the service of the notice. In case, if such person refuses to comply with the order the authority may evict that person from the quarters in question and take possession of the premises and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary, provided, before passing an order the authority shall communicate to the person concerned the ground, on which it is proposed to pass the order and require him to show cause within fifteen days why such order be not passed. 9. Thus, on consideration of the over all situation arising in this case, it is abundantly clear that even after the expiry of the term Sri Tiwary continues to occupy the premises. 9. Thus, on consideration of the over all situation arising in this case, it is abundantly clear that even after the expiry of the term Sri Tiwary continues to occupy the premises. It cannot be denied that Hon ble the Chief Justice of this Court, who in fact had passed orders for allotment of the quarters is competent to cancel the same and once the allotment having been cancelled, the Registrar of the Court rightly moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for taking action against Sri Tiwary under the Premises Act. The order impugned exhibits that the competent authority i. e. respondent No. 1 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate failed in his duty in not exercising jurisdiction which as a competent authority, he was bound to proceed under the Act for eviction. The finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that Hon ble the Chief Justice of this Court was not competent to cancel the allotment is not only erroneous but totally perverse. It has also been rightly pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that many of the present Hon ble Judges of this Court have not been provided with any official residence and many more such quarters are urgently required for use and occupation of the Hon ble Judges of this Court. Thus, in the Present case and in the circumstances, as appearing, there were valid reasons for Hon ble the Chief Justice to cancel the allotment of the residence in question and a bounden duty was cast on respondent No. 1 to act in accordance with law as laid down under the Premises Act. 10. In the circumstances, the application succeeds and the order impugned is set aside. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to take action under the Premises Act and to dispose of the Eviction Case No. 70 of 1983 expeditiously in accordance with law. Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 11 I have perused the judgment prepared by my learned brother Varma and while agreeing with him I would like to add few observations of my own in the matter. 12. It is said that we have been called upon to decide the question of eviction of a person who had been our colleague until sometime before. The facts of the case have been succinctly stated in the judgment of brother Varma and I need not repeat them. 12. It is said that we have been called upon to decide the question of eviction of a person who had been our colleague until sometime before. The facts of the case have been succinctly stated in the judgment of brother Varma and I need not repeat them. Destiny has been so kind on respondent No. 2 that he got three successive appointments as Ad Hoc Judge of this Court after his retirement, which was unprecedented so far, and even thereafter he has got employment as the Executive Chairman of the Bihar State Legal Aid Board. The last term of his Ad Hoc judgeship expired on 20-7-1983 put still thereafter he was permitted by the Chief Justice to remain in occupation of the bungalow in question till the 30th of September 1983 and vacate thereafter; obviously meaning thereby that he had to vacate his residence after the expiry of the said term, but instead of gracefully vacating the premises he has chosen to face the litigation. 13. Respondent No. 2 has also filed a counter-affidavit and tried to defend his conduct. In the long drawn counter-affidavit he has tried to argue his standpoint and defend the favourable order of respondent No. 1. The main plank of the defence of Shri Tiwary as well as the foundation of the impugned order of respondent No. 1 is their erroneous impression that the eviction of Sri Tiwary was sought for on the basis of an order of cancellation of the allotment of the house by the Chief Justice, and inasmuch as such an order could be passed only by the Competent Authority, namely, respondent No. 1 in this case, in accordance with Sec.3 of the Act, the order of the Chief Justice was unenforceable in law. He has said that "it is the Competent Authority alone which has power and jurisdiction under the Act to cancel allotment. If the Government cannot legally pass an order of cancellation under Sec.3 of the Act in respect of Government building, how can the High Court exercise such power of cancellation of allotment in respect of a building placed at the disposal of the High Court?............The Competent Authority cannot legally pass an order of eviction on the basis of the order of cancellation made by the Chief Justice. The order passed by the Competent Authority is legal, valid and with jurisdiction". The order passed by the Competent Authority is legal, valid and with jurisdiction". Surprisingly, Shri Tiwary has further alleged that the eviction case before the competent authority as well as the instant writ application have been filed under a mistake of law and the same has caused unnecessary harassment and humiliation to him. He has tried to defend his action by citing example of one more Judge who also had failed to vacate a Government quarter for seven or eight months or even more. I must express my sorrow for the example cited by Shri Tiwary of another defaulter in order to seek support for his unauthorised occupation of the premises in question. 14. As already said earlier, both the respondents 1 and 2 have completely misdirected themselves under an impression that the action for eviction was taken by the High Court under a purported order of cancellation of allotment. It has already been said in the judgment of my learned brother that the Govt. by its letter (Annexure-1) created a pool of 14 residential quarters and placed them at the disposal of the Chief Justice of the High Court for allotment to the Judges and the Registrar of the High Court and it is under this authority that the Chief Justice pas-see the order of allotment to the Judges of this Court from time to time. In Annexure 1 it has further been clearly stated that "the residences for Judges in the pool are meant for Judges of the High Court only". It is obvious, therefore, that on cessation of the office by the incumbent he is not entitled to remain in occupation of the allotted residence. Rules 2A and 2C of the High Court Judges Service Condition Rule3. 1956 lay down as follows: "2A. RESIDENCE OF JUDGE Section--Each Judge who avails himself of the use of an official residence shall be entitled without payment of rent to the use of a furnished residence throughout his term of office and for a period of one month immediately thereafter, and no charge shall fall on the Judge personally in respect of maintenance of such residence. This concession shall also be admissible to the members of the family of a Judge, who dies while in service for a period of one month immediately after his death." "2C. This concession shall also be admissible to the members of the family of a Judge, who dies while in service for a period of one month immediately after his death." "2C. RENT FOR OVERSTAY--- (1) Where a Judge occupies an official residence beyond the period specified in Rule 2A, he shall be liable to pay for the period of overstay, rent and other charges, in respect of such overstay calculated in accordance with the Rules applicable in this behalf to the members of the Indian Administrative Service holding the rank of Secretary to the Government of the State or the Union Territory as the case may be, in which the principal seat of the High Court is situated." It cannot be gainsaid that the occupation of the building in question by Shri Tiwary is squarely governed by the above rules and it is obvious that after a month of the expiry of his term of appointment as an Ad HOC Judge, he was bound to vacate the premises suo motu and any order of cancellation of the allotment was not called for. As a matter of grace, however, he was allowed to remain for a longer period, i.e., up to 30th September, 1983, but the Chief Justice, on the request of Shri Tiwary only as a matter of indulgence. The expression "cancelled used in the letter of the Registrar (Annexure 3), therefore, cannot be construed as "cancellation" within the meaning of Sec.3 of the Act. Once this position is understood, it brings us to the provisions contained in Section 4 (a) (iii) & (b) of the Act which read as follows: "4. Power to evict certain persons from Government premises.-- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, if the competent authority is satisfied:- - (a) that the Person authorised to occupy any Government premises has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act:-- (i) and (ii) xx xx xx (iii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such premises; (b) that any person is in unauthorised Occupation of any Government premises. the competent authority may, by notice served by registered post or in such other manner as may be prescribed, order that that person as well as any other person who may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises, shall vacate the premises within fifteen days of the service of the notice; and if any person refuses or fails to comply with such order, the competent authority may evict that person from, and take possession of, the premises and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary : Provided that before passing an order under this section the competent authority shall communicate to the person concerned the grounds on which it is proposed to pass the order and require him to show cause within fifteen days why the order should not be passed". 15. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the provisions of Clauses (a) (iii) and (b) of Sec. 4. Mr. Shiva Kirti Singh, appearing for the respondent No. 2, however, contended that Clause (b) would have no application because the expression "unauthorised occupation" occurring in Clause (b) must be given the same meaning as the meaning given to that term under the definition Clause (g) of Sec.2, where unauthorised occupation has been defined as follows:- - " unauthorised occupation means the occupation of Government premises by any person either without any allotment or after the expiry of one month from the date on which an allotment is cancelled under Sec.3". There may be some force in the contention of Mr. Singh that the law, as it stands, unauthorised occupation win have a limited meaning within the ambit of Clause (b) as contemplated under Clause (g) of Sec.2 and, therefore, that may, perhaps, have no full application to the facts of the present case. But, in my considered view, the case of the respondent No. 2 is fully covered under Clause (a) (iii) of Sec. 4 inasmuch as Shri Tiwary was authorised to occupy the premises in question under an order of allotment by the Chief Justice and according to the rules governing the service conditions, the allotment was supposed to remain in force until the period of one month after the end of Ms tenure and in any case up to 30-9-83 as extended by the order of Chief Justice. Therefore, his occupation is not only in contravention of the implied term of his occupation of the premises but is in violation of the express terms when read along with the service conditions. The argument of Mr. Singh that the provisions of the Premises Act cannot be construed with reference to any other provision, is wholly erroneous and must be rejected. Otherwise, if this argument of Mr. Singh is accepted then Clause (iii) of Sec. 4 (a) will become meaningless and practically redundant. 16. In the letter (Annexure 4) written to respondent No. 1 for eviction of Shri Tiwary it was clearly stated:- - ".........Under the rules applicable to the High Court Judges, he (Shri Tiwary) should have vacated the aforesaid residence after one month of his retirement, but he has kept the residence in his occupation. The allotment of the said residence in his name has since been can-called.................." He was accordingly requested to take action against Shri Tiwary for eviction from the premises in question. It appears that both respondents 1 and 2 have fallen prey to the so called order of cancellation of the allotment, completely overlooking the other relevant fact which furnished the ground for proceeding against Shri Tiwary for his eviction from the premises in question. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar has also supported the stand of the High Court and adopted the argument of Shri Mahto appearing for the High Court. 17. I, therefore, come to the irresistible conclusion that the order of respondent No. 1 suffers from errors apparent on its face and must be quashed. I would accordingly allow the application and quash the order contained in Annexure 6. 17. I, therefore, come to the irresistible conclusion that the order of respondent No. 1 suffers from errors apparent on its face and must be quashed. I would accordingly allow the application and quash the order contained in Annexure 6. Since the object of this Special Act is to ensure prompt eviction of unauthorised occupants and realisation of arrears of rent which is manifested from the provision that the Public Authority has to call for vacation of the premises only within 15 days of the service of the notice as provided under Rule 3 of the Bihar Government Premisses (Beat Recovery and Eviction) Rules, 1957 and on his failure, to evict him and lake possession of the premises by such force as may be necessary, I direct respondent No. 1 to take action against respondent No. 2 immediately under the said provisions and on his failure to comply with the terms of the notice, to get the same vacated as early as possible so that it may be made available to another sitting Judge entitled to its occupation, several of whom are in the waiting and feeling great hardship. Let an appropriate writ issue accordingly. 18. With respect to the demand for penal rent in the notice (Annexure 3), the respondent No. 1 may proceed under Sec. 5 of the Act for the purpose of its assessment and recovery separately. In the circumstances, I shall make no order as to costs.