P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) This writ petition came up for preliminary motion hearing on 8.7.2004 when the following order was passed:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We put it to the learned counsel as to whether there is any rule which authorises a person, such as the petitioner, to hold on to the premises even after her husband, who was a Government employee had gone missing. The learned counsel very fairly stated that there was no such rule but has referred to Annexure P- 14, a decision of the House Allotment Committee in the case of some other claimant. We are of the opinion, however, that Annexure P-14, cannot by any stretch of imagination form any basis for decision herein in the light of the fact that there is no rule/instruction in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Walia, however, prays that the petitioner be permitted three months' time to stay on in the premises and undertakes on her behalf to vacate the same without any further delay thereafter. On a consideration of the matter, we permit the petitioner to hold on the accommodation till 15.10.2004 on which date she will vacate the premises. We, however, issue notice of motion for 3.8.2004 on the question as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay penal rent for the year 2002-03. In the meanwhile, in view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that she would vacate the accommodation by 15.10.2004, we stay her eviction therefrom till that date. Dasti order." A reading of the above order would show that notice of motion was confined to the question as to whether the petitioner was liable to pay the penal rent for retaining residential accommodation allotted to her husband in the year 2002-03. The facts relevant to this controversy may now be noticed.
(2.) The petitioner's husband was working as a Joint Director in the Department of Local Funds Account, Punjab, Chandigarh. He had been allotted Government accommodation being House No. 3910 in Sector 22-D, Chandigarh where he was residing along with his family. Unfortunately, the petitioner's husband went missing and was untraceable from 5.8.2000. A D.D.R was lodged by the petitioner with the local police on 8.8.2000. In spite of the fact that the petitioner's husband could not be traced out and ultimately the police closed the case by submission of an 'Untraced' report, the petitioner continued to reside in house no. 3910, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh and at the same time, claimed terminal benefits due to her husband as also compassionate job for her son. Ultimately, an order was issued on 1.8.2003, directing the petitioner to vacate the residential house on 14.9.2003, which is in the following terms:- "Memo No. 2(851) Vol.3/3289. Dated 1.8.2003 Subject : Regarding the recovery of licence fee of the House allotted by Chandigarh Administration. According to the decision taken by House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh Administration, Assistant Controller (F&A)'s letter No. S.O. (R.I.) P5/1/776, dated 16.7.2003, you have been allowed to retain the H. No. 3910, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh as under : 1. From 15.11.2002 to 14.3.2003 - Four Months - Normal. 2. From 15.3.2003 to 14.6.2003 - For Three Months - 20% of the Normal Licence Fee. 3. 15.6.2003 to 14.9.2003 for Three Months - 30% of the Normal L.Fee. For possessing the said house, you are requested to either deposit Rs. 21,061/- or give an authority letter that the amount may be deducted from gratuity, so that ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (Pb.) could be asked to release Gratuity to the family of S. Gurdev Singh, J.D.(Missing) by submitting them 'No Due Certificate'. You are requested to vacate the house from 15.9.2003 so that you don't have to pay Rs. 5,006/- per month. You are clearly told that in case the said amount is not deposited, then the office will not be responsible for any delay in releasing of Gratuity.
(3.) However, subsequently by an order dated 13.8.2003, the Secretary, House Allotment Committee passed yet another order whereby the allotment of the house granted in favour of the petitioner's husband was cancelled with retrospective effect from 8.6.2001. The petitioner was also made liable to pay licence fee at penal rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month, from that date till she actually handed over the possession of the house. It is this order which has been impugned by the petitioner in the writ petition.;