Decided on December 19,1983

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Cited Judgements :-



Sachar, J. - (1.)This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Late R.S. Kapoor, who is now represented by his legal representatives. Late R.S. Kapoor was allotted the premises by the Government at a rental of Rs. 57-50. The said rent was subsequently raised to Rs. 74-95 w.e.f. 1-10-1962. The petitioner retired on 15-10-1962. Under Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules 1963 (to be called 1963 Rules) an allottee could retain accommodation for 2 months. The petitioner thereafter applied for being allowed to stay subsequent to the permissible period in terms of proviso to S.R. 317-B-22. No permission was given and the department, therefore, took proceedings for eviction under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act (called the Act). The appellant was ultimately ordered to be evicted and the actual possession was taken by the department on 8-3-1965.
(2.)Subsequently proceedings for recovery of the amount for the period of unauthorised stay were started against the appellant. The department calculated the amount due from the petitiorer @ Rs. 268-90 from 15-11-1962 to 28-2-1963 and @ Rs. 513-75 per mensem from 11-3-1963 to 31-12-1964. The total amount worked out to Rs. 12,137-70. The appellant objected to this demand but he failed before the Estate Officer. His appeal against the Estate Officer's order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Before the District Judge he had raised a point which he also raised before the learned single Judge namely that the damages were not properly assessed in terms of the Rules on the subject.
(3.)The learned Additional District Judge took the view that the house of the type allotted to the appellant's predecessor could be let out in the market for atleast at Rs. 700- per mensem and the damages had been assessed at rather lenient manner and that the appellant had not been able to show that damages had been assessed in an excessive manner. Before the learned single Judge the appellant again made a grievance that the assessment could not be done at a rate more than Rs. 50.00 to Rs. 70.00 per month and that under the Rules the damages had to be assessed by the Estate Officer which had not been done. Reliance by the appellant on Rule 7 (now Rule 8 under 1971 Act) was negatived by the learned single Judge on the ground that they were merely guidelines to the Estate Officer. The learned single Judge also held that as the government had lodged a claim before the Estate Officer and notice of which had been served on the appellant it was permissible for the Estate Officer to accept this figure and also the Additional District Judge had from his experience observed that the premises could be let out at Rs. 700.00 per month. The plea of applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act to the premises in dispute was negatived on the ground that Section 3 of Delhi Rent Control Act exempts government buildings from the operation of the Rent Act and the standard rent could not, therefore, be a safe criterion for determining rent or damages for use and occupation of the Government premises. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.