JUDGMENT : 1. The town of Roorkee (presently in District Haridwar) was earlier a Nagar Palika Parishad, but since March 2013, after the dissolution, its status has now changed to Nagar Nigam/Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation is functioning in the town after the election of the new Nagar Nigam. While the Corporation was under the control of Administrator, order was passed to take possession of the Nagar Palika Parishad properties, which had been under the occupation of unauthorized occupant. It appears that in pursuance of this order, the petitioners, who were occupying the properties of Nagar Nigam, are now to be vacated. Hence, all of them filed writ petitions before this Court. 2. In some of the writ petitions, interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners. All the petitioners before this Court were either employees of the erstwhile Nagar Palika Parishad (which was subsequently converted into a ‘Nagar Nigam’) or family members of the employees of the Nagar Palika Parishad or the Nagar Nigam. In the capacity of an employee of the Parishad, the petitioners or their predecessors were allotted the official accommodations by the Nagar Palika Parishad, which admittedly could only have been in possession of the employees, till he was an employee of the Nagar Palika Parishad or Corporation, as the case might be. In all these cases, however, either such allottees have continued to be in occupation of these properties even after their retirement from service or in some cases, prior to their retirement, the same property, which was allotted to them on rent, has been subsequently allotted to their relatives who are not employees of the Parishad and on the strength of such orders, these petitioners continue to occupy these official premises. 3. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that they are not in occupation of the properties, as the employees of Nagar Palika Parishad or Nagar Nigam. They are also not unauthorized occupant, as the properties have been allotted in their favour by the erstwhile Chairman of Nagar Parishad though in different years, and even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that they are unauthorized occupants, they can only be evicted from the premises under a due process of law, which could be done only under the U.P. Public Premises Act. They have, hence, challenged the procedure for their eviction at the hands of the Nagar Nigam. They have, hence, challenged the procedure for their eviction at the hands of the Nagar Nigam. In these cases, the Nagar Nigam, has filed its counter affidavits in each of the cases. 4. For the sake of convenience, however, the facts of WPMS No. 1133 of 2013 are being taken into consideration for the disposal of these matters. 5. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner – Ilam Chand was an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee, and he was allotted the official accommodation, at the time of his employment. In the year 1993, by an order of the then Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, the same accommodation was allotted to the petitioner’s son – Dinesh Chand (present petitioner before this Court). He has also annexed the letter dated 19.08.1993, which has been passed by the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee which states that it is being allotted in favour of the petitioner (Dinesh Chand) at monthly rent of Rs.25/- by orders of the Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad. However, no provision of law has been shown to this Court by which the Chairman of this Parishad can suo moto allot a property of Nagar Palika Parishad to a private individual, without there being any resolution of the Nagar Palika Parishad on that. Since no resolution of Nagar Palika Parishad has been shown, hence, the order passed by the Chairman had no sanctity of law, as the counsel for the Parishad Mr. Parikshit Saini would argue. 6. Before going into the merit of the case, however, Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, who is the learned counsel for another petitioner i.e. Smt. Sudesh Sharma (in WPMS No. 2021 of 2016) has relied upon Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act in her favour. It is relevant to quote Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to substantiate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which reads as under:- “Section 116. It is relevant to quote Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to substantiate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which reads as under:- “Section 116. Effect of holding over.- If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in Section 106.” 7. The case of the petitioner (WPMS No. 2021 of 2016) is that her husband was allotted a Government accommodation, who was an employee of the Nagar Palika Parishad, at the relevant time. Thereafter in the year 2011 it was allotted to his wife i.e. Smt. Sudesh Sharma. Thereafter, the petitioner is holding the property and is regularly paying the rent in time, therefore, she cannot be declared as “unauthorized occupant”. 8. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. The reliance of Section 116 of the Transfers of Property Act is not correct, as it is not a case of a lease being given in favour of the petitioner’s husband or even in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was not given a valid allotment by any resolution, but it was given simply by the order of the Chairman, which is not permissible under the law and it is totally without jurisdiction. 9. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad/Nagar Nigam has relied upon Section 441 of I.P.C., as amended in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1961, which is applicable in the State of Uttarakhand as well. 9. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad/Nagar Nigam has relied upon Section 441 of I.P.C., as amended in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1961, which is applicable in the State of Uttarakhand as well. The amended Section 441 of Indian Penal Code as is applicable in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Uttarakhand reads as under:- Section 441- Criminal Trespass.- Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, or, having entered into or upon such property, whether before or after the coming into force of the Criminal Law (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the intention of taking unauthorized possession or making unauthorized use of such property fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said to commit “criminal trespass.” 10. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam has further relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.D. Bandi Vs Division Traffic Officer, Karnataka SRTC reported in 2013 (12) SCC 631 . 11. In the above mentioned case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, by means of a civil appeal filed in the year 2004 by one Sri S.D. Bandi, who was aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 25.03.2004 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while disposing the Civil Appeal filed by the respondents had granted time to the appellant to vacate the Government accommodation by 30.04.2004. The appellant (S.D. Bandi) was working as a Driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation in Mysore and by order dated 31.05.1992, he was transferred to the Mangalore Division and for joining the place of the duty, he was relieved from the duty of Mysore Division on 12.06.1997. The appellant (S.D. Bandi) was working as a Driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation in Mysore and by order dated 31.05.1992, he was transferred to the Mangalore Division and for joining the place of the duty, he was relieved from the duty of Mysore Division on 12.06.1997. Challenging the order of his transfer, the appellant (S.D. Bandi) filed a case before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore and though he did join his duties at Mangalore but did not vacate his Government accommodation at Mysore. The competent officer under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1974 passed an order of eviction against the appellant in the year 1998. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed and the order of eviction was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, which was allowed on 10.12.2011, but in appeal, the petition was dismissed and the appellant was given time to vacate the premises. This order was ultimately challenged by the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court taking this case with other similar matters, the Hon’ble Apex Court took note of the fact that in Government accommodations unauthorized persons continue to stay for years together to the detriment of persons, who are actually entitled to occupy such premises. Taking notice of this fact, notices were sent to different States as well as Union Territories to get a reply and to ascertain the situation on ground in different States and Union Territories. Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, different States and Union Territories, who were represented through their counsels before the Hon’ble Apex Court apprised the Apex Court with factual situation in each of there States and measures taken therein to curb this menace. The Court also appointed an Amicus Curiae for the said purposes. 12. Learned Counsel for the Nagar Nigam - Mr. Parikshit Saini has apprised this Court that before the Hon’ble Apex Court stand taken by the Uttar Pradesh as well as by the State of Uttarakhand was that in their respective States Section 441 of Indian Penal Code has been amended and in the year 1965 (which has been referred in the preceding page) came into force. In the State of Orissa as well there is a similar provision. 13. In the State of Orissa as well there is a similar provision. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while disposing of the matter vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2013 (S.D. Bandi case), has framed certain guidelines on the basis of the reply filed by different States and Union Territories. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:- “32. As per the details furnished by learned amicus curiae and various comments made by Union of India as well as some of the States and the Union Territories, it cannot be said that at present there is no machinery to check eviction of unauthorized occupants as well as recovery of arrears of rent including penal charges. However, it is not in dispute that in spite of existing provisions/rules, directions etc., the fact remains same and the persons from all the three branches either by their influence or by lengthy procedure as provided in the Act, continue to stay in the government accommodation by paying the paltry amount either by way of rent or penalty. In these circumstances, we are of the view that in addition to the statutory provisions, there is need to frame guidelines for the benefit of both Union of India/States and Union Territories for better utilization of their premises. 33. The following suggestions would precisely address the grievances of the Centre and the State Governments in regard to the unauthorized occupants: Suggestions: 33.1. As a precautionary measure, a notice should be sent to the allottee/officer/employee concerned under Section 4 of the PP Act three months prior to the date of his/her retirement giving advance intimation to vacate the premises. 33.2. The Department concerned from where the government servant is going to retire must be made liable for fulfilling the abovementioned formalities as well as follow up actions so that rest of the provisions of the Act can be effectively utilized. 33.3. The principles of natural justice have to be followed while serving the notice. 33.4. After following the procedure as mentioned in SR 317-B-11(2) and 317-B-22 proviso 1 and 2, within 7 working days, send a show cause notice to the person concerned in view of the advance intimation sent three months before the retirement. 33.5. Date of appearance before the Estate Officer or for personal hearing as mentioned in the Act after show-cause notice should not be more than 7 working days. 33.6. 33.5. Date of appearance before the Estate Officer or for personal hearing as mentioned in the Act after show-cause notice should not be more than 7 working days. 33.6. Order of eviction should be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 15 days. 33.7. If, as per the Estate Officer, the occupant’s case is genuine in terms of Section 5 of the Act then, in the first instance, an extension of not more than 30 days should be granted. 33.8. The responsibility for issuance of the genuineness certificate should be on the Department concerned from where the government servant has retired for the occupation of the premises for next 15 days and further. Giving additional responsibility to the Department concerned will help in speedy vacation of such premises. Baseless or frivolous applications for extensions have to be rejected within seven days. 33.9. If as per the Estate Officer the occupant’s case is not genuine, not more than 15 days’ time should be granted and thereafter, reasonable force as per Section 5(2) of the Act may be used. 33.10. There must be a time frame within how much time the Estate Officer has to decide about the quantum of rent to be paid. 33.11. The same procedure must be followed for damages. 33.12. The arrears/damages should be collected as arrears of land revenue as mentioned in Section 14 of the Act. 33.13. There must be a provision for compound interest, instead of simple interest as per Section 7. 33.14. To make it more stringent, there must be some provision for stoppage or reduction in the monthly pension till the date of vacation of the premises. 33.15. Under Section 9(2), an appeal shall lie from an order of eviction and of rent/damages within 12 days from the day of publication or on which the order is communicated respectively. 33.16. Under Section 9(4), disposal of the appeals must be preferably within a period of 30 days in order to eliminate unnecessary delay in disposal of such cases. 33.17. The liberty of the appellate officer to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the Act should be exercised very reluctantly and it should be an exceptional practice and not a general rule. 33.18. 33.17. The liberty of the appellate officer to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the Act should be exercised very reluctantly and it should be an exceptional practice and not a general rule. 33.18. Since allotment of government accommodation is a privilege given to the Ministers and Members of Parliament, the matter of unauthorized retention should be intimated to the Speaker/Chairman of the House and action should be initiated by the House Committee for the breach of the privileges which a Member/Minister enjoys and the appropriate Committee should recommend to the Speaker/Chairman for taking appropriate action/eviction within a time bound period. 33.19. Judges of any forum shall vacate the official residence within a period of one month from the date of superannuation/retirement. However, after recording sufficient reason(s), the time may be extended by another one month. 33.20. Henceforth, no memorials should be allowed in future in any Government houses earmarked for residential accommodation. 34. It is unfortunate that the employees, officers, representatives of people and other high dignitaries continue to stay in the residential accommodation provided by the Government of India though they are no longer entitled to such accommodation. Many of such persons continue to occupy residential accommodation commensurate with the office(s) held by them earlier and which are beyond their present entitlement. The unauthorized occupants must recollect that rights and duties are correlative as the rights of one person entail the duties of another person similarly the duty of one person entails the rights of another person. Observing this, the unauthorized occupants must appreciate that their act of overstaying in the premise directly infringes the right of another. No law or directions can entirely control this act of disobedience but for the self realization among the unauthorized occupants. The matter is disposed of with the above terms and no order is required in I.As for impleadment and intervention.” 14. No law or directions can entirely control this act of disobedience but for the self realization among the unauthorized occupants. The matter is disposed of with the above terms and no order is required in I.As for impleadment and intervention.” 14. Learned counsel for the Nagar Palika further relies upon a recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lok Prahari Vs State of U.P. & others (decided on 01.08.2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657 of 2004) where the Hon’ble Apex Court in a public interest litigation further relying upon the decision of S.P. Bandi case (supra) has further held that since it was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Apex Court that in various States former Chief Ministers and other dignitaries, who are continuing to occupy the Government accommodation in spite of their not being in the Office, even after demitting their Office. Relying upon the ratio of Bandi’s case the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Government took recourse the validity of Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 under which the accommodation could be given to Ex-Chief Ministers for life. These Rules were held to be violative of Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 and the operative portion of the judgment (Lok Prahari case) reads as under:- “In the circumstances, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs and it is held that the 1997 Rules so far as they are not in consonance with the provisions of the 1981 Act are bad in law. The government bungalows allotted to the respondents is held to be bad in law and the concerned respondents shall hand over possession of the bungalows occupied by them within two months from today and the respondent-Government shall also recover appropriate rent from the occupants of the said bungalows for the period during which they were in unauthorized occupation of the said bungalows.” 15. The official accommodation, which was given to the petitioner was given with a trust that they would vacate the accommodation, as soon as they retire from service or are transferred to another place. By deceit, some of the petitioners, obviously in connivance with the authorities have continued to stay in the premises. Their occupation on the premises is not legal and they are liable to be evicted. By deceit, some of the petitioners, obviously in connivance with the authorities have continued to stay in the premises. Their occupation on the premises is not legal and they are liable to be evicted. They are definitely not authorized occupants of the property. The petitioners have clearly failed to establish any kind of right on the said property, which may justify their occupation on the said property. 16. With the aforesaid observation and particularly in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court (referred above), the writ petitions hence fail and are hereby dismissed. 17 Interim orders, if any, passed in the present matters are hereby vacated. The respondent authorities are now at liberty to take measures in accordance with law in order to vacate the premises in question.