ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 570 of 2016 in L.P.A. No. 63 of 2015 This interlocutory application has been preferred for condonation of delay of 17 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph nos. 4 to 7, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 17 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 570 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 63 of 2015 with L.P.A. No. 81 of 2015 with L.P.A. No. 88 of 2015 4. These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 12th November, 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 7640 of 2012 with W.P.(C) No. 3777 of 2012 with W.P.(C) No. 390 of 2013, whereby, the writ petitions preferred by these appellants were dismissed and the orders passed by the Estate Officer-cum-Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Ranchi as well as the order passed by the appellate authority have been confirmed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, original petitioners have preferred these Letters Patent Appeals. 5. It appears from the facts of the case that original owner of the houses/flats in question is Jharkhand State Housing Board. The property was given on lease for 99 years to Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as "CMPF"). CMPF has given flats to their employees at Ranchi, for those who are posted at Ranchi. 6. It further appears from the facts of the case that later on thinking process was going on to sell away those flats to the employees, but, nothing was materialized. The resolution was passed by the CMPF in its 142nd meeting and the proposal to sell away the flats to their employees was turned down. In fact, the property in question belongs to Jharkhand State Housing Board. CMPF is a lessee and lessee was thinking to give the property by way of sale to the employee. This noble idea could not be materialized. In fact, the property in question belongs to Jharkhand State Housing Board. CMPF is a lessee and lessee was thinking to give the property by way of sale to the employee. This noble idea could not be materialized. This has given birth to notice by the first authority then orders by the first authority, then orders by the appellate authority, then dismissal of the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge and then these Letters Patent Appeals by those employees who were expecting sale of the flats in their favour from the lessee-CMPF and that too without any permission of the owner of the property-lessor of the property Jharkhand State Housing Board. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the claim of these appellants is noting beyond than expectations because of the fact that once upon a time thinking process was going on in the mind of the lessee-CMPF to sell away those flats to the employees of the lessee. 8. After retirement of the appellants from the service, no order has been issued permitting the appellants to retain the quarters allotted to them. The employees were retired on following dates: Sl. No. Name of the employees of CMPF (lessee) Date of retirement 1 Damodar Das 28.02.2003 2 H.K. Jha @ Hare-krishna Jha 31.01.2005 3 B.P. Sharma 31.07.2005 4 Wakil Roy 28.02.2003 5 S.B. Ram 28.02.2005 6 Bahadur Thakur 31.01.2004 7 Ganesh Chandra Bagchi 31.08.2006 8 S.N. Goswami 30.09.2004 9 Jageshwar Prasad 31.01.2006 10 Baban Singh 31.03.2004 9. These appellants (original petitioners) have not brought on record any document to indicate that they were permitted to retain the quarters allotted to them despite the fact that the appellants have retired much earlier. Thus after their retirement, they are illegal occupants. 10. The aforesaid employees are the appellants of the aforesaid three Letters Patent Appeals. They have retired much earlier, but, they are under expectation of sale of property in question by the lessee to them. These expectations could not be materialised because the Board of C.M.P.F. in its 142nd meeting dated 29th July, 2004 has turned down the proposal to sell away the property to the aforesaid appellants. In fact, lessee has no power to sell away the property without purchasing the same. "Nobody can transfer better title than what he is having". 11. These expectations could not be materialised because the Board of C.M.P.F. in its 142nd meeting dated 29th July, 2004 has turned down the proposal to sell away the property to the aforesaid appellants. In fact, lessee has no power to sell away the property without purchasing the same. "Nobody can transfer better title than what he is having". 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to Annexure-8 and other annexures annexed with the Letters Patent Appeals. None of these annexures is helpful to these appellants because CMPF (lessee) cannot think of selling the property of the lessor to its employees and, hence, there is no question whatsoever arises of any expectation by these appellants that CMPF will sell the property in their favour. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the Estate Officer-cum-Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Ranchi as well as by the appellate authority and by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petitions which were dismissed vide order dated 12th November, 2014. On the contrary, much leniency has been shown by the learned Single Judge in the last paragraph of the decision that the CMPF will not impose any penal rent upon these appellants. This is the expectation of the learned Single Judge, otherwise, these appellants are liable to pay the penal rent also, but, as no appeal has been preferred by the CMPF, we are not altering that finding of the learned Single Judge. 12. There being no substance in these Letters Patent Appeals and, hence, the same are, hereby, dismissed. Appeals dismissed.