Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 549 (JHR)

Nityanand Chaudhary v. Union of India

2014-04-25

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER 1. The present appeal is filed against the order dated 11.6.2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3121 of 2002, upholding the order of imposition of penal rent. 2. Both the appellants are Senior Auditor in the Defence Accounts Department. While they were posted in Local Audit Office, Ranchi, they were allotted Defence Pool accommodations meant only for Armed Force Personnel posted in the Station being Quarter Nos. P-16/1 and C/1 respectively by the respondents, based on the request of appellant nos. 1 and 2. The appellant nos.1 and 2 continued in their occupation till 30.6.1998 and 15.6.1998 respectively on which dates the appellants were forced to vacate the quarters. 3. The case of the appellants is that the appellants were transferred for certain period from Ranchi to North East Region/Field Area and their transfer was not by way of permanent posting and even when the appellants were on transfer, they were wrongly declared as an unauthorized occupants. Since the appellants were transferred and were not in the Station, they were declared unauthorized occupants and hence eviction order was issued to them to vacate the same as per Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. 4. The appellants filed CWJC No. 1606 of 1997 (R) against the order of eviction and by order dated 20.4.1998, the said eviction order was stayed and the appellants were directed to pay monthly rent regularly. However, the appellants were evicted on 30.6.1998 and 15.6.1998 respectively and penal rent was deducted from the pay bill from 1999 to 2003. Thereafter the appellants filed WP (C) No. 3121 of 2002 contending that they are not liable to pay penal rent for the quarters in question for the period from 1.4.1995 to 30.6.1998 in view of the concessions provided in paragraph (h) of Annexure-C to the Circular (Annexure-1). 5. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the Circular relied upon by the appellants is of no assistance to them, since those Circular relied upon by the appellants are applicable only to General/Civilian Pool accommodation; whereas the quarters in question are under Defence Pool accommodation meant only for Army Personnel and there is no general pool accommodation at Ranchi and the quarters in question were allotted to the appellants temporarily for the duration of their stay at Ranchi and, therefore the appellants are liable to pay the penal rent. 6. 6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of retention of quarters allotted at Ranchi while they were posted at Arunachal Pradesh (North East Region). The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the various Circulars as contained in Annexure-5 along with writ petition and 3.submitted that those Circulars-Government orders are having the statutory force of law and the appellants are entitled to retain the quarters allotted to them at Ranchi during their posting at Arunachal Pradesh (NER) without payment of penal rent. The learned counsel further submitted that the Circulars and also the Government orders have the statutory force of law are bound to be followed and in this view of the matter, the proceeding initiated under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the orders passed thereon for eviction as well as for recovery of penal rent for the use and occupation of the premises are contrary to these Circulars and the Government orders and are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the order passed in CWJC No. 1606 of 1997(R) dated 20.4.1998 and submitted that inspite of the order passed in the said writ petition to consider the case of the appellants, the respondents-authorities have not considered the case of the appellants, in accordance with the various Circulars-Government orders, and passed the order of eviction and also issued the order for recovery of penal rent. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has submitted that the various Circulars-Government orders relied upon by the appellants are in relation to only for General/Civilian Pool accommodation and Ranchi Military Station does not have any such General/Civilian Pool accommodation and, therefore the order for recovery of penal rent is in accordance with law and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition and the order of the Writ 4.Court does not warrant any interference. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on record. 10. The appellants were alloted Defence Pool accommodation meant for army personnel for duration of their posting at Ranchi. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on record. 10. The appellants were alloted Defence Pool accommodation meant for army personnel for duration of their posting at Ranchi. According to the respondents, the appellants were allotted accommodation with stipulated instruction to vacate the same on their transfer from Ranchi. According to the respondents, in Ranchi Military Station only the army personnel are eligible for accommodation and the appellants, who are civilians, were allotted accommodation temporarily since at that time no defence personnel was waiting for the same. According to the respondents, the accommodations were allotted to them with specific instruction and undertaking to vacate the same when they are transferred out of Ranchi and also without asking for alternative accommodation. 11. Admittedly, the appellants were transferred to Arunachal Pradesh (NER) in April, 1995 and as per their undertaking, they are not entitled to continue the occupation. On failure to vacate the said accommodations on their posting out of Station at Ranchi, the appellants were asked to vacate the same and inspite of number of notices, the appellants have not vacated and, therefore the appellants were declared as unauthorised occupant as per the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and accordingly actions were initiated against them to recover damages as per Section 7 of the said Act. 12. In so far as the Circulars relied upon by the learned counsel for 5.the appellants are concerned, those Circulars are applicable only for General/Civilian Pool accommodation. In the present case, Ranchi Military Station does not have any General/Civilian Pool accommodation and the accommodation in question is exclusively for Defence Pool accommodation meant for army personnel. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the provisions of the said Circulars are not applicable and those Circulars are of no help to the appellants. The order declaring the appellants as unauthorised occupants of the quarters and the order directing the recovery of the penal rent for use and occupation of the premises from 1.4.1995 to 30.6.1998 are well in accordance with the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized) Act, 1971 and, therefore to that extent we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. 13. 13. In so far as, amount payable as penal/damages rent for use and occupation as per Section 7(2A) of the Act is concerned, the amount shall be payable together with simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978. 14. Since there was an order of stay granted by this Court in the proceeding of CWJC No. 1606 of 1997 (R) whereby the respondents were directed to take normal monthly rent only and further in the present proceeding, that is, W.P. (C) No. 3121 of 2002 also this Court vide order dated 18.2.2003 directed the respondents not to recover penal rent, however were permitted to recover the normal rent only, we are of the view that on the penal rent payable by the appellant, the interest in terms of Section 7(2A) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unatuhorised Occupants) Act, 1971 may not be levied on the appellants. 15. It is pertinent to note that the appellants have already retired in the year 2005 and 2006 and the amount of penal rent payable became due in the year 1998. It is also pertinent to note that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 51,000/- respectively have already been recovered from appellant nos. 1 and 2. In these circumstances, on the penal rent from 1.4.1995 to 30.6.1998 the simple interest as per the provisions of Section 7(2A) of the Act may not be levied on the appellants. 16. Considering these facts and circumstances, this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge with the modification that the respondents are only entitled to recover the penal rent, deducting the rent already recovered from the appellants, without levying any interest in terms of Section 7(2A) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.