Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 638 (PNJ)

Rakesh Kumar Chhabra v. Estate Officer

2012-04-27

MAHESH GROVER

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.: - The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court praying for setting aside the order impugned herein dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 8.3.2011 (Annexure P-3) as also the order dated 17.1.2011 (Annexure P-4). While the first two orders have the effect of evicting the petitioner from the government accommodation made available to him, the last order dated 17.1.2011 has the effect of imposing penalty for retaining the house unauthorisedly. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the Chandigarh Administration and was allotted a house in Sector 27, Chandigarh on 11.6.2003. 3. Even though the house was retained by the petitioner, he did not make use of it personally on the ground that his brother who stayed at Ambala City was ailing and he was required to take care of him and which warranted a daily travel from Ambala to Chandigarh. The respondents initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act and sent numerous notices on the address of the allotted house which went unanswered. On physical inspection some other occupants were found present in the house leading to an allegation against the petitioner that he had sublet the premises. 4. The petitioner, who had by now been subjected to the provisions under the Public Premises Act suffered an adverse order Annexure P-2 against him by the Estate Officer directing the eviction of the petitioner or any other person who may be in occupation thereof and the petitioner was required to vacate the premises within 15 days of the date of publication of the order. By virtue of this order the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the House Allotment Committee. In appeal preferred by the petitioner the order of the Estate Officer was upheld after considering the pleas that the petitioner raised, primarily the plea of having to stay at Ambala for compelling reasons of his brother’s ailment. The plea of not having been served in that proceedings was also negated as it was observed by the appellate authority that the premises were lying locked as per the report submitted by the serving agency which also stated that the notice was pasted on the outer side of the premises in question. It was specifically observed in the order that the processing agency had served repeated notices in the like manner. It was specifically observed in the order that the processing agency had served repeated notices in the like manner. The allegation of subletting was also one of the persuasive grounds adopted by the appellate authority to upheld the cancellation of the allotment of the house to the petitioner. Subsequent thereto Annexure P-4 was passed burdening the petitioner with a liability of Rs.66,688/- as the penal rent due against the petitioner upto the period ending 30.11.2010. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the orders adverse to him has pointed out that no notice was served upon him and that the allegations against him regarding not occupying the house or subletting are unsustainable in the absence of any cogent material to that effect. Apart from this submission, no other legal submission has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the orders and has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure R-2 which is the report indicating that some other persons were permitted to use the premises when the same were checked on 5.5.2010 and 6.5.2010. 7. I have considered the matter in its entirety and am of the opinion that no fault can be found in the orders under challenge. The petitioner was allotted a house in accordance with the rules in the year 2003 but instead of using the premises for the purpose for which the allotment was made he preferred to retain it as an alternate accommodation. He has not been able to deny (rather his positive stand is that he was staying at Ambala for compelling reasons) the fact that he was staying at Ambala for most of the time. Even if one were to bend the rules of equity in favour of the petitioner to lend justification to this explanation, yet the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the premises were being used by some other persons as is established by the respondents and regarding which the petitioner has not been able to offer any explanation either before the competent authority seized of the situation under the Public Premises Act or before this Court. There is thus no escape from the conclusion that the facility of the house allotted to the petitioner was clearly abused by him. There is thus no escape from the conclusion that the facility of the house allotted to the petitioner was clearly abused by him. The respondents were thus justified in initiating proceedings under the Public Premises Act against the petitioner and direct cancellation of this allotment. Further, in the absence of any legal infirmity being found or any plea having been raised, I am of the opinion that the Court cannot evaluate the facts and arrive at a conclusion if another one is possible to upset the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority under the Act. 8. For the aforesaid reasons there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and the petitioner having abused the facility, has rightly been fastened with the liability of paying the penal rent. 9. A prayer was then made that the petitioner is due to retire in the year 2012 and therefore he be permitted to retain the house till that time. I am afraid this prayer cannot be accepted more so when the petitioner during his active tenure of service did not avail the facility by utilising it purposefully. 10. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------