- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st March, 2005, by which the order passed by the Estate Officer, asking the respondent/writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 37,670/-, as damages for alleged unauthorised occupation from 1st Jaunary, 1999 to 6th April, 1999, was set aside.
(2.) THE short fact of the case is that the respondent/writ petitioner was a Central Government Advocate and he was allotted an accommodation at the premises in question. Under the terms and conditions of service, the respondent/writ petitioner was to pay monthly occupation charge of Rs. 310/- per month. THE respondent/writ petitioner retired from Government service on 30th April, 1998 and thereafter he was allowed to occupy the said premises till 25th August, 1998 and he continued to occupy till 22nd December 1998 and he paid all the occupation charges for the said period. Thereafter, a writ petition came to be filed by the respondent/writ petitioner and in that writ petition learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order of status quo with regard to possession of the premises and also rent. Thereafter, the respondent/writ petitioner handed over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent No.1 (appellant herein) on 7th April, 1999. Thereafter, the Estate Officer, being the appellant herein calculated the rent payable by the respondent/writ petitioner from 1st January, 1999 to 7th April, 1999 at penal rate.
(3.) THE learned trial Judge has set aside and quashed the aforesaid occupation charge amounting to Rs. 37,670/-. THE aforesaid amount was calculated applying the rate of penal rent. The point for consideration before the learned trial Judge was whether the Estate Officer could charge the aforesaid amount on account of occupation charge at the penal rate when the respondent/writ petitioner was in occupation on the strength of interim order passed by this Court.;