Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1785 (DEL)

S. NARASIMHAN v. UNION OF INDIA

2002-11-27

MANMOHAN SARIN

body2002
MANMOHAN SARIN ( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the estate Officer dated 15. 11. 1978, by which the Estate Officer under Sub Section 2 of section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 6,395. 05, assessed by him, as damages for the alleged unauthorised occupation of the Government quarter No. DG-927, Sarojani Nagar, New delhi. Petitioner was required to pay the first instalment by 15. 12. 1978 and remaining amount in 25 equal monthly instalments. Petitioner disputed his liability to pay the above damages. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as under: (I) Petitioner was posted as a Senior accountant with the PNT Department in the year 1974. Petitioner got transferred on deputation to kathmandu. Petitioner was relieved on 7. 10. 1974. Petitioner claims that he, accordingly, had the water and electricity of the quarter dis-connected by 15. 10. 1974 and also informed the directorate of Estates about the vacation of the quarter on 16. 10. 1974. This was done by the petitioner vide his letter of 7. 10. 1974. The said letter had been addressed to the Officer. Incharge, estate Office. The case of the petitioner is that he had requested his brother-in-law, who was also residing in delhi, to hand over quarter to CPWD. Petitioner claims that his brother-in-law handed over the keys of the quarter to cpwd, Enquiry Office at Sarojani Nagar. A receipt was issued, which was sent to the petitioner to Kathmandu. This receipt was unfortunately misplaced is not traceable. Petitioner states that he was not very particular about preserving this receipt, as there was no controversy in this regard. (II) Learned counsel further submits that petitioner had done all that was required by him, namely, intimating the directorate of Estates of his transfer, getting the water and electricity disconnected and his brother-in-law handing over the keys of the quarter to the CPWD Inquiry Office. The present demand based on the records of the Directorate of Estates regarding receipt of vacant possession is wholly unsustainable. The present demand based on the records of the Directorate of Estates regarding receipt of vacant possession is wholly unsustainable. (III) Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on Supplementary Rule 317b- 14, which is as under: - " (1) An officer may at any time, surrender an allotment by giving intimation so as to reach the Director of estates at least ten days before the date of vacation of the residence. The allotment of the residence shall be deemed to be cancelled with effect from the eleventh day after the day on which the letter is received by the director of Estates or the date specified in the letter, whichever is later. If he fails to give due notice, he shall be responsible for payment of licence fee for ten days or the number of days by which the notice given him falls short of ten days provided that the Director of estates may accept a notice for a short period. " ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel submits that due notice had been given, as such the petitioner stands discharged of any liability with regard to the rent or payment of charges for occupation. Petitioner claims that since he had vacated the premises and duly notified the respondents of the same, no deduction was made from his salary or claim made on him till the impugned notice. Petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, who, however, dismissed the said appeal as being barred by limitation by few days. ( 4 ) NOTICE to show cause in the writ petition was issued on 14. 1. 1980 and the recovery of the impugned demand was stayed. Vide order dated 27. 3. 1980, Division Bench had directed the respondents to produce the register regarding handing over and taking over of possession or any other relevant record. This register was not available for a long period of time. The said register has since then been produced. The register has the entry at S. No. 2595 with regard to the petitioner s quarter. The date of occupation by the petitioner is shown as 20. 12. 1973 (A. N.), while the date of vacation is shown as 1. 11. 1977. The date 1. 11. 1977 has clear overwriting thereon. Mr. Sanjay Jain, counsel for the respondent, points out that the over writing is confined to the year. The date of occupation by the petitioner is shown as 20. 12. 1973 (A. N.), while the date of vacation is shown as 1. 11. 1977. The date 1. 11. 1977 has clear overwriting thereon. Mr. Sanjay Jain, counsel for the respondent, points out that the over writing is confined to the year. To my mind, an over writing whether of date or month or year has the same effect i. e. raising a doubt on the genuineness of the record, unless there is an explanation for the said over writing. In this case, year is relevant, since it is the petitioner s case that possession was handed over in the year 1974 and not in 1977. Mr. Jain further submits that petitioner has not fulfilled the requisite obligation with regard to the handing over of possession of the quarter. He submits that whenever a quarter is to be taken possession of, it is mandatory for the CPWD staff to check the fittings and fixtures and then give a discharge to the allottee. In this case, this procedure was not followed. He, therefore, submits that petitioner s case of his brother-in-law handing over the keys and possession is not credible in the absence of the receipt. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner s brother-in- law has not filed any affidavit in support of having handed over possession. He also disputes the petitioner s version regarding having learnt of the quarter being vacant and then writing the letter dated 28. 6. 1977 to the respondent. ( 5 ) HAVING heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that in the present facts and circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge should have disposed of the matter on merits and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Be that as it may, as more than 22 years have elapsed, there would be no point in now remanding the case to the Additional District judge to dispose of the appeal on merits, when the Court itself has called for the records and perused the same. Counsel for the parties are agreed on this course of action. In my view, the receipt of letter dated 7. 10. 1974 is not denied by the respondent. Counsel for the parties are agreed on this course of action. In my view, the receipt of letter dated 7. 10. 1974 is not denied by the respondent. Petitioner, in my view, has substantially complied with the requirements, as laid down in Supplementary rule 317b-14, by notifying the respondents of his intention to vacate the quarter on 16. 10. 1974. Further, the intention of handing over vacant possession is manifested by the petitioner getting the water and electric supply dis-connected. It is not a case of the respondent that any member of the petitioner s family was occupying the premises. There would be no conceivable reason for the petitioner to keep the premises locked while himself being in Kathmandu on deputation. The version of the petitioner of having handed over possession through his brother-in-law is credible. This is especially so, considering that the petitioner had got the water and electricity dis-connected. It is also to be noticed that petitioner s own department did not deduct any amount on account of house Rent Allowance (HRA) or for occupation. It appears to me that this is a case of lapse and negligence on the part of the Estate Office or CPWD agency responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the quarters that the quarter in question remained unoccupied for three years. The burden cannot be shifted on the petitioner and he be asked to make the payment therefor. Moreover, the entry in the record showing handing over of possession on 1. 11. 1977 does not inspire any confidence having an over writing in respect of the year. It is the duty of the respondents to maintain the register and make factual and correct entries. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand is quashed being unsustainable. Records have been handed over to Mr. Sanjay Jain, counsel for the respondent.