Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3004 (MAD)

A. Rama Tulasi v. Director General CPWD

2012-07-13

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for and quash the proceedings of the 7th respondent, dated 14.12.2011, issued under Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, issued in the name of the 10th respondent, the husband of the petitioner, in respect of the Central Public Works Department Quarters, Indira Nagar, Chennai, and to direct the respondents 1 to 9 to deduct the rent and other incidental expenses, relating to the said quarters, from the house rent allowance of the 10th respondent. 3. The petitioner has stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the 10th respondent. She has been living in the quarters in question, along with her minor son. While so, the 7th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings to the 10th respondent, the husband of the petitioner, asking him and all other persons occupying the quarters, or any part thereof, to vacate the premises, within 15 days from the date of the publication of the proceedings. It has also been stated, in the said proceedings, that in the event of refusal or failure to comply with the said direction, the 10th respondent and the other persons concerned, who are in unauthorized occupation of the public premises, would be evicted from the said premises, if need be, by the use of such force, as may be necessary. 4. The petitioner has further stated that she has been living in the Central Public Works Department Quarters, along with her husband, the 10th respondent herein. While so, disputes had arisen between the petitioner and the 10th respondent, due to the demand of dowry, by the 10th respondent. Thereafter, the 10th respondent had deserted the petitioner and her minor son, during the year, 2004. From the year, 2004, the 10th respondent has been staying, separately, without taking care of the petitioner and her minor son. He had also filed a petition for divorce, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, in O.P.No.1736 of 2004, which is pending on the file of the Family Court-II, Chennai. From the year, 2004, the 10th respondent has been staying, separately, without taking care of the petitioner and her minor son. He had also filed a petition for divorce, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, in O.P.No.1736 of 2004, which is pending on the file of the Family Court-II, Chennai. In turn, the petitioner had filed a petition, for restitution of conjugal rights, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, in O.P.No.462 of 2009, on the file of the Family Court-II, Chennai. 5. It had been further stated that the petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.3995 of 2007, in O.P.No.1736 of 2004, claiming interim maintenance. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been residing in the Central Public Works Department Quarters, allotted in the name of her husband, the Court concerned had fixed a minimum amount of Rs.600/-, per month, for the maintenance of the petitioner and a sum of Rs.1500/-, for the maintenance of her minor son, by an order, dated 9.3.2009. The 10th respondent was also made liable to pay the educational expenses of her minor son. 6. The petitioner had further stated that the 10th respondent, the husband of the petitioner, had been taking steps to evict the petitioner and her minor son from the Central Public Works Department Quarters, at Chennai. He had given a letter to the 6th respondent surrendering the quarters allotted to him. On the basis of the said letter, the 6th respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner, on 15.5.2009, asking her to vacate the quarters, by the end of May, 2009. Since, the authorities concerned had not taken steps to evict the petitioner and her minor son, from the quarters in question, the 10th respondent had preferred a writ petition before this Court. However, the said writ petition had been dismissed, as withdrawn, by an order passed by this Court, on 22.7.2010, as it was found to be not maintainable. Thereafter, the 6th respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner, asking her to vacate the quarters, on or before 2.9.2010. However, by a notice, dated 30.8.2010, the 6th respondent had withdrawn the earlier notice, issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Thereafter, the 6th respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner, asking her to vacate the quarters, on or before 2.9.2010. However, by a notice, dated 30.8.2010, the 6th respondent had withdrawn the earlier notice, issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Thereafter, the 10th respondent had moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, seeking a direction to the respondents to take steps for evicting the petitioner from the quarters. Even though the issue of maintainability of the application had been raised, the Tribunal had observed that it was open to the 10th respondent, the applicant before the Tribunal, to surrender the quarters allotted to him, as per the relevant rules. It had also been observed that, on receipt of the request from the applicant, for surrendering the quarters, the respondents concerned may take action to take possession of the premises in question, in accordance with law. Based on the said order, the 10th respondent had preferred a contempt application, in C.A.No.48 of 2011, to force the respondents to evict the petitioner from the premises in question. The application had been closed, on 1.6.2011, giving liberty to the respondent concerned to take action, to evict the unauthorized occupants of the premises in question. Accordingly, the original applications, in O.A.Nos.634 and 740 of 2011, had also been disposed of with similar directions, by an order, dated 9.6.2011. In such circumstances, the authorities concerned have been taking steps to evict the petitioner and her minor son from the premises in question. The 7th respondent had issued the impugned notice, dated 14.12.2011, under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, addressed to the 10th respondent. However, no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to put forth her case, as per Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Without giving such an opportunity of being heard, the 7th respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, dated 14.12.2011, to evict the petitioner and her minor son from the premises in the question. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court 7. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are incorrect and false. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court 7. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are incorrect and false. It has been further stated that the 10th respondent has been working in the office of the Executive Engineer (E), Bangalore Central Electrical Division-II, CPWD, Kendriya Sadan, Bangalore, after he had been relieved from Chennai, on 25.4.2011. The 10th respondent had joined duty, at Bangalore, on 13.6.2011. As per the said rules, the 10th respondent had been permitted to retain the quarters, which had been allotted in his name, upto 25.6.2011. Thereafter, the 10th respondent had no right, whatsoever, to retain the quarters in question. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 7th respondent it had been stated that the Central Public Works Department Quarters are allotted to the government servants, who are eligible for such quarters, to reside therein, along with their family members. Once the government servant is transferred, the family of the transferred government servant would have to vacate the premises in question. The question of giving a notice in writing for vacating the quarters does not arise, as it is the duty of the government servant concerned to surrender such premises, to the Estate Officer, once he has been transferred out of Chennai. 9. It has been further stated that the Essential Maintenance (CPWD) Quarters had been allotted to the 10th respondent, on 10.11.1998. After he had been shifted to Bangalore he is expected to surrender the said quarters. As per the Estate Rules the eviction notice would be issued only to the government servants, who are the allottees and not to his family members. Further, the disputes, said to have arisen between the petitioner and the 10th respondent, cannot be shown as valid reasons for the petitioner to occupy the quarters allotted in the name of the 10th respondent. If the quarters is not vacated by the allottee an eviction notice would be issued only to the allottee in default, as per the relevant rules. If the quarters is not vacated by the allottee an eviction notice would be issued only to the allottee in default, as per the relevant rules. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that individual notices had to be issued to all the family members of the allottee, including the petitioner and her minor son, who are unauthorised occupants of the premises in question. It has also been stated that a similar request made by the petitioner, as in the present writ petition, had been dismissed, by an order passed by this Court, dated 15.2.2010, in M.P.No.3 of 2009, in C.R.P.(PD)No.1712 of 2009. In such circumstances, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had contended, inter alia, that the 7th respondent ought to have issued notices, under Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, before initiating action against them. The failure to give such a notice to the petitioner vitiates the entire proceedings of the 7th respondent, dated 14.12.2011. It has also been stated that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, had no power to issue any direction to the respondents, with regard to the eviction of the unauthorised occupants, from government quarters. The impugned order passed by the 7th respondent is illegal and non est in the eye of law, as it has been passed without hearing the petitioner, who is in possession of the premises in question. 11. It had also been stated that the Family Court-II, Chennai, had passed an order, granting interim maintenance of Rs.600/-, to the petitioner, and Rs.1500/- to her minor son, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner and her minor son are living in the government quarters, belonging to the Central Public Works Department, Chennai. If the petitioner and her minor son are evicted from the quarters, it would cause them serious financial hardship and mental agony. 12. It has been further stated that the 7th respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 14.12.2011, in collusion with the 10th respondent, in order to defeat the valuable rights of the petitioner. The 7th respondent has no authority or power to evict the petitioner from her matrimonial home, without following the procedures established by law. 12. It has been further stated that the 7th respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 14.12.2011, in collusion with the 10th respondent, in order to defeat the valuable rights of the petitioner. The 7th respondent has no authority or power to evict the petitioner from her matrimonial home, without following the procedures established by law. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. State of Haryana and others Vs. Mohinder Pal and others (2001) 9 SCC 292 2. Union of India Vs. Rasila Ram and others (2001) 10 SCC 623 3. B.P.Achala Anand Vs. S.Appi Reddy (2005) 3 SCC 313 4. In the matter of B.H.P & V. Ltd., Visakhapatnam (AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 207) 5. Tara Singh Vs. The Assistant Divisional Engineer Highways and Rural Works, Cuddalore 1999(1) MLJ 558 6. N.Govindan Vs. The Chief Personal Officer, I.C.F. Madras-28 and another 1999(III) CTC 588 13. Per contra the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. The impugned proceedings, dated 14.12.2011, had been issued by the 7th respondent, to the 10th respondent, who is the allottee of the quarters in question. If the 10th respondent is aggrieved by the said proceedings, it would be open to him to file an appeal, as per Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. However, it would not be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings of the 7th respondent, before this Court, by filing a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The learned counsels had also submitted that no notice had to be issued, by the 7th respondent, as claimed by the petitioner, in view of the fact that the 10th respondent had surrendered the premises in question, after he had been transferred from his office at Chennai, on 25.4.2011. The claim of the petitioner that the surrender of the quarters in question, by the 10th respondent, cannot be said to be collusive in nature, as it had been done, as per the conditions of allotment of the quarters, and as per the relevant Estate Rules applicable to such allotment. The claim of the petitioner that the surrender of the quarters in question, by the 10th respondent, cannot be said to be collusive in nature, as it had been done, as per the conditions of allotment of the quarters, and as per the relevant Estate Rules applicable to such allotment. Further, it would not be open to the petitioner to demand that she should be allowed to occupy the quarters in question till the divorce proceedings and the proceedings instituted for restitution of conjugal rights, pending on the file of the Family Court-II, Chennai, reaches the stage of finality. The petitioner cannot claim that she would have a right to stay in the quarters, allotted to the 10th respondent, even after he had been transferred to Bangalore. In fact the 7th respondent had followed the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, by its order, dated 30.9.2010. The petitioner had not challenged the said order passéd by the Tribunal and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal had become final. As such, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits. 15. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well, as the respondents, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the relief prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be granted by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. From the records available, it is noted that the 10th respondent, who is the allottee of the quarters in question, had been transferred to Bangalore, on 25.4.2011. Thereafter, he had surrendered the Central Public Works Department quarters allotted in his name. Thereafter, it would not be open to the petitioner to claim any right to occupy the quarters in question. There is nothing on record to show that the 7th respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 14.12.2011, in collusion with the 10th respondent. It is for the 10th respondent to challenge the impugned proceedings of the 7th respondent, dated 14.12.2011, if he is aggrieved by the said proceedings, before the appropriate authority, under Section 9 of the the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 17. It is for the 10th respondent to challenge the impugned proceedings of the 7th respondent, dated 14.12.2011, if he is aggrieved by the said proceedings, before the appropriate authority, under Section 9 of the the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 17. It cannot be said that the 7th respondent ought to have issued separate notices to all the family members of the allottee of the quarters in question, as held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in Municipal Corporation of Greater Vs. N.A.Qureshi and another ( 1986(2) BomCR 315 ). It is for the petitioner to work out her remedies, before the Family Court concerned, in the pending divorce proceedings and the proceedings relating to the restitution of conjugal rights. Further, it would not be open to the petitioner to state that the interim maintenance amount fixed by the Family Court was based on the fact that the petitioner and her minor son were occupying the government quarters allotted in the name of the10th respondent. It is for the petitioner to claim additional maintenance, if so advised, before the Family Court concerned, for enhancement of the maintenance amount, in accordance with the procedures established by law. 18. It is also noted that the Central Administrate Tribunal, Chennai, had passed an order, dated 30.9.2012, directing the authorities concerned to initiate proceedings against the 10th respondent, if necessary, to evict him from the premises in question, if he is found to be in unauthorized occupation of the same. The said order had become final and binding on the 7th respondent. Even though the petitioner may be entitled to certain rights, if she is found to be the legally wedded wife of the 10th respondent, it is for her to establish the same, before the appropriate forum or authority, in the manner known to law. However, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings issued by the 7th respondent, addressed to the 10th respondent, and to pray for a direction to the authorities concerned to deduct the rental amounts relating to the premises in question, from the House Rent Allowance of the 10th respondent. In such view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. In such view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. However, if it is found that the petitioner is in occupation of the premises in question, unauthorisedly, it would be open to the concerned authority to initiate appropriate action against her, to evict her from the said premises, by following the appropriate procedures established by law. Further, it is made clear that the sixth respondent shall not be liable, for any such unauthorised occupation, of the quarters in question, by the petitioner. No costs.