JUDGMENT : The petitioner, a member of the Central Reserve Police Force, has challenged the demand of rent at the market rate for the family quarters occupied by him in Salt Lake for the period May, 2013 onwards. The respondents have disclosed in their affidavits that upon the petitioner not immediately vacating the relevant quarters and not paying mesne profits at the market rate as demanded, proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was allotted a set of family quarters in the year 2006 at a time when the petitioner was posted in Calcutta. In June, 2008 the petitioner was transferred to the North-East region and remain posted in the North-East region till his transfer to Durgapur in July, 2014. The petitioner vacated the Salt Lake family quarters in November, 2014. The respondents say that the petitioner has been allotted family quarters in Durgapur, but the petitioner denies such position and claims that he has been forced to take on rent an alternative space where his family resides in Calcutta. The parties refer to the Central Reserve Police Force Family Accommodation Rules, 2008. One of the provisions in such Rules provides for a minimum period of allotment of three years which may be extended upto five years upon obtaining the permission of the concerned general commanding officer or seven years upon obtaining the permission of the inspector general of the sector or beyond such period upon obtaining permission in special circumstances from the director general. According to the respondents, since the petitioner was allotted the Salt Lake family quarters in 2006, he was liable to vacate the same after three years or obtain an extension therefor in accordance with the said Rules. The respondents claim that the notices for eviction were issued to the petitioner upon the expiry of his extended period of stay. The respondents justify the demand of monthly rent or mesne profits at the rate of Rs.14,300/- per month with effect from May 25, 2013 on such ground. The respondents claim that the notices for eviction were issued to the petitioner upon the expiry of his extended period of stay. The respondents justify the demand of monthly rent or mesne profits at the rate of Rs.14,300/- per month with effect from May 25, 2013 on such ground. The relevant Rule in the said Rules of 2008 contains a special provision for CRPF personnel posted in, inter alia, the North-East region: “Personnel posted to J&K/NE Region/LWE areas are allowed to retain the family quarters till their actual posting in these areas.” Since it is evident from the admitted facts that the Salt Lake quarters were allotted to the petitioner in the year 2008, by the time the petitioner was transferred out of Calcutta to the North-East region in June, 2008, he was till entitled to retain the quarters without seeking any extension therefor. By virtue of the Rule pertaining to, inter alia, posting in the North-East region quoted above, till the duration of the petitioner’s posting in the North-East region between June, 2008 and July, 2014, there was no question of the petitioner being called upon to vacate the Salt Lake quarters or paying any damages for overstaying thereat. Thus, the right of the respondents to demand the Salt Lake quarters to be vacated by the petitioner arose only after the petitioner’s transfer from the North-East region to Durgapur in July, 2014. It is also expected that a reasonable time would be afforded to a person to remove himself or his family and their articles from any quarters occupied for a considerable period of time. Accordingly, the period till the end of August, 2014 can be regarded as a reasonable time for the petitioner to move out the Salt Lake quarters. It is irrelevant that no alternative accommodation may have been immediately allotted to the petitioner in Durgapur. The fact remains that the Rules permit a CRPF employee to retain the family quarters at his previous place of posting till such time that he remain posted, inter alia, in the North-East region. Once the petitioner was transferred out of the North-East region, he became liable to surrender possession of the Salt Lake family quarters within a reasonable period of about a month or so. Once the petitioner was transferred out of the North-East region, he became liable to surrender possession of the Salt Lake family quarters within a reasonable period of about a month or so. It is the further admitted fact that the possession of the concerned quarters was surrendered by the petitioner in favour of the respondent authorities by November, 2014. Accordingly, it is only for the months of September, October and November (till the date of the petitioner’s vacating the quarters), that rent or occupation charges or mesne profits or damages may be demanded by the respondent authorities from the petitioner at the highest. The respondent authorities have not justified the demand of Rs.14,300/- per month by way of damages or mesne profits. The respondents say that such amount would be the reasonable letting out market rate for equivalent space in Salt Lake. Such aspect of the matter need not be gone into since the estate officer under the said Act of 1971 is in seisin of the issue and there is no doubt only such damages as may be payable under the said Act of 1971 in accordance with any practice followed by the respondents will become payable for the petitioner’s family overstaying at the Salt Lake quarters for a short while from September, 2014 till the date of vacating of the quarters sometime in November, 2014. WP 33713 (W) of 2013 is allowed by setting aside the demand made by the respondent authorities against the petitioner for payment for the period prior to September 1, 2014. The petitioner will be liable to pay rent or mesne profits or damages for the occupation of the Salt Lake family quarters from September 1, 2014 till the date when the petitioner vacated such premises at the approved rate usually charged by the CRPF for such purpose or at such rate which may be permissible in accordance with law, whichever is lower. The estate officer appointed by the respondent authorities for such purpose will address such issue upon hearing the petitioner and complete the adjudication within a period of three months of the receipt of a copy of this order. In computing the damages or mesne profits, the estate officer will ascertain whether the petitioner was allotted any quarters at Durgapur in July, 2014 or at any period subsequent thereto and take such fact into account. In computing the damages or mesne profits, the estate officer will ascertain whether the petitioner was allotted any quarters at Durgapur in July, 2014 or at any period subsequent thereto and take such fact into account. CAN 7117 of 2015 was an application for an interim order. Since the petition has been taken up for final consideration in the presence of the parties, such application is disposed of without any order. There will be no order as to costs. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.