JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs: (a) For quashing of the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned District Judge-IV, Bokaro, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Case No. 11 of 2017, contained in Annnexure-6, whereby and whereunder he has dismissed the said appeal of the petitioner, confirming the judgment dated 20.02.2017 passed by the court of Sri P.S. Dwivedi, Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, in Case No. A/E-23 of 2016, contained in Annexure-5. (b) For quashing of the judgment dated 20.02.2017 passed by the court of Sri P.S. Dwivedi, Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, in Case No. A/E-23 of 2016, contained in Annexure-5, whereby and whereunder he has allowed the case of the opposite party-company filed under the provisions of Section 7(1) and 7(2A) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,05,576.42/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Five Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Six and Forty Two Paise) only, to the opposite party-Company against the rent, electricity and water charges, calculated from 01.12.1995 to 26.10.2009, ignoring the facts that the rent etc. have already been received by the opposite party-company from the petitioner up till 30.06.2009 through pay slip. (c) For issuance of an appropriate writs, orders, directions to the opposite party authorities, directing them to pay amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only with interest since 03.11.2017 till the date of payment, which the opposite parties have retained with them in terms of oral order dated 03.11.2017 passed in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 544 of 2016 for the entire amount payable to the petitioner in form of security, subject to outcome of the appeal so filed by the petitioner bearing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 2017. (d) For issuance of a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent from the period of 01.07.2009 to 26.07.2009 @ 100/- per month and a further direction to the opposite parties to accept the same though the opposite parties have not demanded the same from the petitioner at any occasion. Factual matrix 3. The petitioner joined the services of opposite party-Company on 11.12.1970 and he was allotted a residential Quarter No. 1029, Sector 4/F/C, in Bokaro Steel City and retired from his services on 30.06.2009. Factual matrix 3. The petitioner joined the services of opposite party-Company on 11.12.1970 and he was allotted a residential Quarter No. 1029, Sector 4/F/C, in Bokaro Steel City and retired from his services on 30.06.2009. He handed over possession of said quarter to the Bokaro Steel Limited authorities on 26.10.2009. The opposite party-Company received rent and other charges of the said quarter from the petitioner through a pay slip till 30.06.2009. It is alleged that after retirement of the petitioner, the opposite party-Company paid the retiral dues to him withholding the amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- without giving any kind of information to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the company, but no satisfactory reply was given by the Management. Then, petitioner filed a W.P. (S) No. 6060/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi which was allowed vide order dated 20.05.2016 with direction to the opposite parties to release the amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum (Annexure-1 to the petition). 4. The opposite party-Company instead of complying the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2016 preferred an L.P.A. No. 279 of 2016 challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge. The petitioner also filed a Contempt Case (Civil) No. 544 of 2016 against the opposite party for non-compliance of order dated 20.05.2016. The said L.P.A. was sent for mediation before the Jharkhand Legal Services Authority wherein it was agreed that the opposite party-Company will withdraw the L.P.A. No. 279/2016 and will initiate required legal proceedings at the earliest. It was also settled that in terms of oral order dated 03.11.2017 in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 544 of 2016, Rs. 2,00,000/- will be retained by the opposite party subject to the outcome of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 2017 filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order of Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant under Section 7(1) and 7(2A) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called “Act of 1971”). 5. 2,00,000/- will be retained by the opposite party subject to the outcome of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 2017 filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order of Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant under Section 7(1) and 7(2A) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called “Act of 1971”). 5. It is further alleged by the petitioner that after passing the order in W.P. (S) No. 6060/2010 dated 20.05.2016 by learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court and before withdrawal of the L.P.A. No. 279/2016 on the aforesaid terms, the opposite party-Company played a trick and filed an application dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure-3) before the Estate Officer, SAIL, Bokaro under the provisions of Section 7(1) & 7(2A) of Act of 1971 against the petitioner for payment of amount of Rs. 4,05,576.42 for damages, rent/penal rent from the period of 01.12.1995 to 26.10.2009 and the Estate Officer has registered the case on 10.06.2016 vide Case No. A/E-23 of 2016 for arrears of rent only and not for penal rent on eviction from authorized occupation (order sheet of A/E-23/2016 has been filed as Annexure-3/A). The petitioner filed his show cause reply in above said case A/E-23/2016 before the Estate Officer, SAIL, Bokaro and rejoinder was also filed by the opposite party Company (Annexure-4 & 4/A respectively). Both parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence and pressed their arguments. Thereafter, the learned Estate Officer vide judgment dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure-5) directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,05,576.42 only against rent, electricity and water charges. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order/judgment dated 20.02.2017 passed by Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City in Case No. A/E-23/2016, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal No. 11/2017 under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 before the court of learned District Judge, Bokaro, which was also dismissed vice judgment dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-6) confirming the order of Estate Officer. 7. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Estate Officer, SAIL, Bokaro in Case No. A/E-23/2016 and appellate judgment passed by the learned District Judge-IV, Bokaro in Misc. Appeal No. 11/2017 dated 22.03.2021. 8. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was validly allotted Quarter No. 4/F/C/1029 vide Allotment Order No. TA/C/94-0763 (1) dated 08.08.1994 being an employee of the opposite party-Company. Appeal No. 11/2017 dated 22.03.2021. 8. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was validly allotted Quarter No. 4/F/C/1029 vide Allotment Order No. TA/C/94-0763 (1) dated 08.08.1994 being an employee of the opposite party-Company. In pursuance of the aforesaid allotment order, the petitioner occupied the said quarter on 22.08.1994. The petitioner applied for house building advance under the House Building Advance Rules/Policy of the opposite party-Company for constructing House and the same was sanctioned and granted to him of Rs. 2,00,000/- vide order dated 05.12.1994 to be repaid in three installments, first installment was paid on 10.02.1995, second installment was paid on 02.05.1995 and third installment was paid on 01.09.1995. As per House Building Advance (in short “HBA”) Circular and Policy of the opposite party-Company, the petitioner had to vacate the quarter allotted to him as and when construction of his house is completed or within three months after last installment of HBA was drawn i.e. up to 30.11.1995. It is further submitted that due to non-completion of construction of his house and civic amenities available in the Village-Chas, Bokaro, the petitioner remained in his allotted quarter throughout his tenure and no action was taken against him by cancelling allotment order or declaring him unauthorized occupant within the meaning of Act of 1971, as such, after adjudicating the genuine cause of withholding his retiral dues by the opposite party-Company before the High Court and its judgment in favour of the petitioner, the opposite party-Company has instituted proceedings under Section 7(1) & 7(2A) of the Act of 1971 only with a mala-fide intention to harass the petitioner and the penal amount of arrears of rent was also deliberately imposed, which is equivalent to the amount withheld i.e. Rs. 4 lakhs plus. 9. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was validly allotted the quarter and retained it till his retirement by paying the rent and electricity charges from his pay slip, he cannot be said to be unauthorized occupant. It is also extraneously pointed out that the whole scheme of the said Act is to protect the public premises from unauthorized occupation either by its employees or any other individuals. It is also extraneously pointed out that the whole scheme of the said Act is to protect the public premises from unauthorized occupation either by its employees or any other individuals. There is no independent scope of Section 7 of the Act of 1971 to release the arrears of rent from a valid allottee, who has never been declared unauthorized occupant of public premises, as such, both the courts below i.e. the Estate Officer, SAIL, Bokaro Steel City and the appellate order passed by the learned District Judge-IV, Bokaro suffers from substantial illegality and improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the said courts and also amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, liable to be set aside and petitioner is entitled for reliefs claimed in this petition. 10. Per Contra, proposing the contents of counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties, it is contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that during the service period, the petitioner applied for house building advance to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was granted to him as per HBA Rules/Circulars of the opposite party-company. It is submitted that under the provision of House Building Advance Rules/Policy Circular No. PER/(RR-134) dated 14/21.07.1981, the petitioner had to vacate the quarter allotted to him as and when construction of house was completed or within three months from the date of last installment of house building advance was drawn i.e. up to 30.11.1995. The petitioner did not comply with the terms of the HBA Circular and had not vacated the quarter allotted to him by the opposite party-Company even after several notices being personally served to him vide Letter No. TA/A/RC/96-1664 dated 10/14.10.1996, TA/A/RC/97/877 dated 17.06.1997, TA/A/RC/98-631 dated 18.03.1998 and TA/A/RC/99-469 dated 10.02.1999. 11. It is emphatically argued that since the petitioner did not vacate the quarter under his possession within the prescribed time period as per HBA Rules, occupation of the quarter in question became unauthorized w.e.f. 01.12.1995, the petitioner ultimately vacated the said quarter on 27.10.2009. Thus, he was in unauthorized occupation of quarter in question w.e.f. 01.12.1995 to 26.10.2009 rendering him liable to pay the penal rent for the said period, electricity charges and other charges along with interest thereon. Thus, he was in unauthorized occupation of quarter in question w.e.f. 01.12.1995 to 26.10.2009 rendering him liable to pay the penal rent for the said period, electricity charges and other charges along with interest thereon. Therefore, the Estate Officer after considering the show cause reply of the petitioner and its rejoinder by the opposite party company and document submitted by the parties has rightly directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4,03,301.42 towards penal rent, Rs. 1,248 towards electricity and Rs. 1027 towards missing/damage fitting and fixtures, total Rs. 4,05,576.42 in relation to quarter in question, which was due and payable to him. Above arrears of Estate dues is based on office orders/rules of the opposite party company dated 27.06.2006 which has been revised on 16.06.2009. The opposite party along with their counter affidavit have filed House allotment Rules, 2017 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the petitioner constructed his house at Chas, Bokaro, which falls under 8 Km radius from main Administrative Building of SAIL, Bokaro despite of specific rule to vacate the quarter after construction of the house and several notices being served upon the petitioner, he did not vacate the quarter in question. The House Allotment Policy of the opposite party-Company is transparent and publicized and nobody is allowed to retain the quarter in contravention of the policy. Hence, there is no question of harassing the petitioner, rather action of opposite party is in accordance with law and is not at all suffering from malice in law. The penal rent is being charged from the petitioner because the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant and was illegally occupying quarter of the Company. The Eviction Case No. A/E-23/2016 was filed after giving the notices to the petitioner for vacation of the quarter. Both the courts below have rightly considered all the aspects of the case and have passed reasoned order, which requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous petition, which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Decisions and Reasons 13. Before proceeding further it would be profitable and keep abreast of the relevant provisions of Act. Both the courts below have rightly considered all the aspects of the case and have passed reasoned order, which requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous petition, which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Decisions and Reasons 13. Before proceeding further it would be profitable and keep abreast of the relevant provisions of Act. The term “unauthorized occupation” has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Act of 1971 as under: (g) “unauthorized occupation” in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any persons of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any persons of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises, has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. Section 2(f) defines “rent” as under: (f) “rent” in relation to any public premises, means the consideration payable periodically for the authorized occupation of the premises, and includes: (i) any charge for electricity, water or any other services in connection with the occupation of the premises. (ii) any tax (by whatever name called) payable in respect of the premises, where such charge or tax is payable by the Central Government or the statutory authority. Section 2(fa) defines “residential accommodation occupation” (fa) “residential accommodation occupation” in relation to any public premises means occupation by any person on grant of licence to him to occupy such premises on the basis of an order of allotment for a fixed tenure or for a period he holds office, in accordance with the rules and instructions issued in this regard, made under the authority of the Central Government, a State Government, a Union territory Administration or a statutory authority, as the case may be. Section 3-B defines Eviction from residential accommodation: 3-B. Eviction from residential accommodation: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 and section 5, if the estate officer has information that any person, who was granted residential accommodation occupation, is in unauthorized occupation of the said residential accommodation, he shall: (a) forthwith issue notice in writing calling upon such person to show cause within a period of three working days why an order of eviction should not be made. (b) cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the said residential accommodation, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been served upon such person. (2) The estate officer shall, after considering the cause, if any, shown by the person on whom the notice is served under sub-section (1) and after making such inquiry as it deems expedient in the circumstances of the case, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order of eviction of such person. (3) If the person is unauthorized occupation refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction referred to in sub-section (2), the estate officer may evict such person from the residential accommodation and take possession thereof and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. 5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants: (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer shall make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order but not later than fifteen days from the date of the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises: Provided that every order under this sub-section shall be made by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), as the case may be, of section 4. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction [on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under sub-section (1), whichever is later] the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf [may after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that person] from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. Provided that if the estate officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that there exists any compelling reason which prevents the person from vacating the premises within fifteen days, the estate officer may grant another fifteen days from the date of expiry of the order under sub-section (1) to the person to vacate the premises. 7. Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises. (1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (2A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with [compound 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 of 1978). (3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause [within seven days from the date of issue thereof], why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer. (3A) If the person in unauthorised occupation of residential accommodation challenges the eviction order passed by the estate officer under sub-section (2) of section 3B in any court, he shall pay damages for every month for the residential accommodation held by him. (4) Every order under this section shall be made by the estate officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice. 14. The paramount object of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is to provide for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters. It was enacted to provide for a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants and public premises. Section 5 of the Act provides for taking possession of the public premises which are in unauthorized occupation of persons. Section 7 of the Act provides for the recovery of rent or damages in respect of public premises from persons who are in unauthorized occupation thereof. 15. From bare perusal of above statutory provisions as well as considering the whole gamate of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above following points emerges for determination of this case: (i) Whether the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the premises in question at any point of time? (ii) Whether rent or damages/penal rent may be imposed against a person occupying the premises under authority? (iii) Whether the internal rules/circulars of the statutory body (SAIL) can supersede the statutory provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971? 16. All the above points are inter-connected, hence, taken together for adjudication. 17. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was a permanent employee holding an executive post was allotted the quarter in question. He also applied for House Building Advance under the rules of the Company. Rs. 16. All the above points are inter-connected, hence, taken together for adjudication. 17. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was a permanent employee holding an executive post was allotted the quarter in question. He also applied for House Building Advance under the rules of the Company. Rs. 2 lakhs was sanctioned to him, which has been deducted from his salary and was satisfied during the service period of the petitioner. As per circular of the year 1992, the petitioner was required to vacate the quarter after completion of his house or within three months period from the date of sanction of last installment that comes to 30.11.1995. It is also admitted that three notices were issued within span of 1995 to 1999 to the petitioner to vacate the quarter in question, otherwise penal rent may be charged, which was not replied by the petitioner, but he orally convinced the authorities and remained in occupation of the said quarter allotted to him till his retirement from service. It is also apparent that opposite party-Company has deducted usual rent of the quarter in question from the salary of the petitioner till the date of his retirement without raising any objection or deduction of any penal rent and the petitioner handed over the vacant possession of the quarter in question on 26.10.2009 after retirement. 18. The dispute arose for the first time when from the retiral dues/benefits of the petitioner, Rs. 4,30,000/- was deducted without any information/communication to the petitioner. On his query with the department no satisfactory reply was given to him which compelled him to prefer a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 6060/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court wherein the action of the opposite party-Company was not found genuine and legal and direction was passed against the opposite party-Company to realize the entire withheld amount. Thereafter, a proceeding under Section 7 (1) & 7(2A) of the Act of 1971 was initiated against the petitioner, which he contested by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. 19. Thereafter, a proceeding under Section 7 (1) & 7(2A) of the Act of 1971 was initiated against the petitioner, which he contested by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. 19. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer, in Case No. A/E-23/2016, it appears that the proceeding was initiated under Section 7 (1) & 7(2A) of the Act of 1971, but there was no issue as to petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the quarter in question and it has also not been pointed out that as to when the occupation of petitioner became unauthorized without its cancellation order. It is simply observed that as per HBA Circular of the company dated 21.01.1992 (Exhibit-A/6) construction of house by the allottee within radius of 8 km from the Administrative Building of the Company at BSL, Bokaro, the quarter is liable to be vacated by the occupant. It was also observed that the opposite party (petitioner) continued to occupy the said quarter in violation of provisions of HBA Rules and Circulars referred hereinabove and did not vacate the same despite notices being served upon him and was not under lawful occupation of the said quarter from 01.12.1995 to 26.10.2009 contrary to the provisions laid down by applicant company, opposite party is liable to pay penal rent, damages with interest for the aforesaid period. 20. There is no whisper in the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer that the occupation of allotted quarter by the petitioner after construction of house of taking house building advance and within stipulated time would be deemed to be unauthorized occupation. It is also apparent that inspite of issuing notices till 1999 against the petitioner for vacating the quarter which he did not vacate and for which penal rent was charged. The normal rent @ Rs. 100/- per month which was deducted throughout his service. No proceedings was brought against the petitioner for eviction on ground of unauthorized occupant. 21. At this juncture, I have to discuss some relevant provisions of House Allotment Rules of BSL, which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the opposite parties: 1. SHORT TITLE AND APPLICABILITY (a) The House Allotment Rules consolidated with up-to-date revisions and amendments, as under, are issued with the approval of competent authority which shall henceforth be called “The HOUSE ALLTMENT RULES-2017.” (b).................................... (c).................................... SHORT TITLE AND APPLICABILITY (a) The House Allotment Rules consolidated with up-to-date revisions and amendments, as under, are issued with the approval of competent authority which shall henceforth be called “The HOUSE ALLTMENT RULES-2017.” (b).................................... (c).................................... (d) Subject to availability and for beneficial working of the affairs of the Company an employee may be permitted to stay in a quarter as a licensee in accordance with these Rules for such periods as may be permitted by the Management. (e) The quarters at all times, before, during and after the allottee is put to use of the same as a licensee shall continue to be in possession of the Company. The occupation of quarters by an allottee shall be without any right, title or interest in the quarters or the land appurtenant thereto. Rule 2 defines certain expressions: (a) Allotment: “Allotment” means grant of permission by the Management by a written order to an employee/Non-employee to use a quarters or part thereof as specified in the allotment order as a licensee for residential/Office purposes of the allottee and his/her family members for such periods as permitted by the management and subject to these rules. (b) Allottee: “Allottee” means an employee/non-employee in whose favour a valid allotment of quarters subsists. (f) Employee: “Employee” means a person in employment of the Company and covered within the definition of the terms under the certified standing orders of the Company or the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Company. (i) Competent Authority: “Competent Authority” means the Chief Executive of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City in whatever designation he may be called. (k) House Rent & Electricity charges: Rates charged as fixed by the management for Rent & Electricity from Non-BSL agencies other than Government, PSU and educational Institutions. (n) Rent: Rent means the sum fixed by the Company from time to time and includes standard rent payable by the allottee per month or otherwise for use of a quarters allotted to him/her during subsistence of such allotment. (o) Penal Rent: It means the sum fixed by the Company from time to time to be charged from the employees whose quarters has been cancelled or is deemed to be under his/her unauthorized occupation in accordance with these rules. (o) Penal Rent: It means the sum fixed by the Company from time to time to be charged from the employees whose quarters has been cancelled or is deemed to be under his/her unauthorized occupation in accordance with these rules. (r) Unauthorized use/Occupation: Unauthorized Use in relation to quarters means use or occupation of a quarters or part thereof without a valid allotment and includes continuance of use/occupation of the quarters beyond the period of validity of the allotment and/or authorized period of retention. 28. INTERPRETATION: In the event of any doubt or dispute as to the interpretation of any of the provision/provisions contained in these Rules, the decision of the Authority in the matter shall be final and binding. 22. In view of the above provisions of House Allotment Rules of the opposite party-Company, the petitioner is a valid allottee of the quarter in question and his allotment was in subsistence till his retirement and even after three months when he delivered vacant possession to the company. Therefore, he cannot be categorized as unauthorized occupant of the premises in question. The penal rent also applies in respect of employees whose allotment of quarter has been cancelled. There is no deeming provision that if any employee as per Circular of the opposite party-Company have taken House Building Allowance to construct house within 8 km. radius and does not vacate the same will be deemed as an unauthorized occupant of the quarter allotted to him. Moreover, the internal circular and rules are handmade as a guideline for efficient work of the company in the matter connected therewith. It cannot supersede the statutory provisions of the Act. It is very strange that the learned appellate court also did not bother to independently exercise his own application of mind towards the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, rather in the last paragraph affirmed the order of Estate Officer without assigning any valid reasons. 23. In view of above discussions and reasons, I find and hold that both the Estate Officer and appellate court of District Judge-IV, Bokaro have recorded absolutely illegal findings and imposed penal rent and damages against the petitioner. 23. In view of above discussions and reasons, I find and hold that both the Estate Officer and appellate court of District Judge-IV, Bokaro have recorded absolutely illegal findings and imposed penal rent and damages against the petitioner. As per rules discussed above, the very initiation of proceedings appears to be mala-fide, unjust and actuated with anguish and rejectment, due to agitating the matter before the writ court wherein specific order has been passed against the opposite parties to realize the withheld amount of retiral dues of the petitioner, as such, impugned judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned District Judge-IV, Bokaro, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Case No. 11 of 2017 and judgment dated 20.02.2017 passed by the court of learned Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, in Case No. A/E-23 of 2016 are set aside and petitioner is not liable to be charged with any penal rent/damages by the opposite party-Company in respect of quarter in question being Quarter No. 1029, Sector 4/F/C, in Bokaro Steel City. 24. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is allowed.