- (1.) SIMILAR matters have been disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 27.3.2010, passed in L.P.A No. 84 of 2010, which reads as under: - - . "Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The instant appeal is disposed of with the consent of parties at the admission stage itself on the very short question. The petitioner -appellant, who was an employee of M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited had offered for voluntary retirement in the year 2002 which .was accepted by the Manager of the Company. However, by letter dated 30.8.2003 (Annexure -1), he was allowed to continue occupation of the quarter allotted to him on deduction' of normal rent till the entire backlog/benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme is paid to him. Some of the amounts were paid to the appellant as per the scheme but the dispute remained with regard to the payment of dearness allowance which was said to have been frozen. After payment of some amounts, when the appellant did not vacate the quarter, the respondent moved the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The Estate Officer allowed the application and directed the appellant to vacate the quarter and also to pay market rent and damages as also the interest on the said amount. The appellant challenged the said order of the Estate Officer before the District Judge, Bokaro in appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant moved this Court by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge by a reasoned judgment held that the appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the quartet and therefore, liable to pay -rent damages etc. Hence, this appeal. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drawn our attention to the Schedule Appended to the order passed by the Estate Officer and submitted that as against the normal rent which was payable by the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2005, the Estate Officer directed payment of market rent in addition to conservancy charge, electricity charges, damages and interest. For better appreciation the direction as contained in Schedule -II to the order passed by the Estate Officer is quoted herein below: Schedule -II 1. Arrear in respect of quarter in question w.e.f. 1.1.2005 till vacation of the quarter. (a) House rent @ Rs. 2/ - per sq. feet per month. (b) Conservancy charge @ Rs.3/ - per month. (c) Electricity as per rule of the Company on actual consumption.
(2.) DAMAGE in respect of quarter in question @ Rs. 42.50/ - per sq. meter of plinth area per month w.e.f. 1.1.2005 till the date of vacancy/eviction and other charges as stated above as per rule of the Company. The opposite party has to pay simple interest @ 10% per annum on the amount aforesaid w.e.f. 1.1.2005 till its final payment. Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act confers power upon Estate Officer to order for payment of rent or damages. If the Estate Officer directs for payment of market rent or penal rent as against the normal rent, then that will amount to a direction for payment of penal rent or damages. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant very fairly submitted that so far the payment of arrears of rent in respect of the quarter in question at the market rate besides conservancy charges, electricity charges etc., the appellant is liable to pay the same but so far damages is concerned, that cannot be paid in addition to the penal rent. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel. Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel appearing for M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited on getting instruction very fairly submitted that if the appellant pays the penal rent/market rent as agreed by him, the respondent shall not claim any damages or interest. We are of the view that when the appellant has vacated the quarter then he may not be saddled with interest as also damages. With the aforesaid modification in the order of Estate Officer relating to payment of damages and interest, this appeal is allowed in part. It is made clear that we have not interfered with the findings of the Estate Officer and also of the learned Single Judge that the occupation of the appellant was unauthorized. We have not expressed any opinion with regard to entitlement of the appellant for the payment of the dues for which the writ petition is pending." 2. This Appeal is also disposed of in terms of the order contained hereinabove.;