MAHESH GROVER - (1.) THE petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court praying for setting aside the order impugned herein dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 8.3.2011 (Annexure P-3) as also the order dated 17.1.2011 (Annexure P-4). While the first two orders have the effect of evicting the petitioner from the government accommodation made available to him, the last order dated 17.1.2011 has the effect of imposing penalty for retaining the house unauthorisedly.
(2.) THE petitioner is an employee of the Chandigarh Administration and was allotted a house in Sector 27, Chandigarh on 11.6.2003. Even though the house was retained by the petitioner, he did not make use of it personally on the ground that his brother who stayed at Ambala City was ailing and he was required to take care of him and which warranted a daily travel from Aambala to Chandigarh. The respondents initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act and sent numerous notices on the address of the allotted house which went unanswered. On physical inspection some other occupants were found present in the house leading to an allegation against the petitioner that he had sublet the premises.
(3.) THE petitioner, who had by now been subjected to the provisions under the Public Premises Act suffered an adverse order Annexure P-2 against him by the Estate Officer directing the eviction of the petitioner or any other person who may be in occupation thereof and the petitioner was required to vacate the premises within 15 days of the date of publication of the order. By virtue of this order the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the House Allotment Committee. In appeal preferred by the petitioner the order of the Estate Officer was upheld after considering the pleas that the petitioner raised, primarily the plea of having to stay at Ambala for compelling reasons of his brother's ailment. THE plea of not having been served in that proceedings was also negated as it was observed by the appellate authority that the premises were lying locked as per the report submitted by the serving agency which also stated that the notice was pasted on the outer side of the premises in specifically observed in the order that the processing agency had served repeated notices in the like manner. THE allegation of subletting was also one of the persuasive grounds adopted by the appellate authority to upheld the cancellation of the allotment of the house to the petitioner. Subsequent thereto Annexure P-4 was passed burdening the petitioner with a liability of Rs.66,688/- as the penal rent due against the petitioner upto the period ending 30.11.2010.;