On 7th September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, held that fact that the petitioner did not physically hand over the possession of the premises, does not entitle the petitioner for any protection. The bench further held that since petitioner does not remain in the service and has been struck off from the strength of the Air Force, petitioner is not entitled to continue in possession of the accommodation which was allotted to him being in service.
Facts of the case:
Petitioner impugned order dated 07.07.2021 whereby the appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, declined to grant an interim stay to the petitioner from vacating the staff accommodation. A case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner on 30.06.2016. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had made cash deposits of over Rs. 16 crores in his bank account. Petitioner has denied the allegation. During his employment, the petitioner was allotted a quarter. Since petitioner failed to vacate the quarter, after expiry of the period of one month, proceedings under the Public Premises Act were initiated. Said proceedings culminated in an order of eviction proceedings passed on 03.11.2020.
Contention of the petition:
The learned counsel for the petitioner declined the order for the grant of stay. Hence, he did not vacate the premise.
Contention of the defendant:
The following contention had been filed by defendant:
- It was submitted that petitioner has not been able to show any right or entitlement of the petitioner to retain the premises.
- Since petitioner does not remain in the service and has been struck off from the strength of the Air Force, petitioner is not entitled to continue in possession of the accommodation which was allotted to him being in service.
- Mere fact that an appeal is pending against an order of dismissal does not entitle petitioner to continue in occupation of the quarter meant for service personnel and allotted to the petitioner and consequently to an interim protection.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The following observation has been made by the hon’ble bench of the court:
- Since the accommodation is within the boundary of the Air Force Station, the court did not find any infirmity in the action taken by the respondent in appointing a Board of Officers chaired by a Commissioned Officer of the rank of Wing Commander.
- Mere fact that the petitioner did not physically hand over the possession of the premises, does not entitle the petitioner for any protection.
- The malafide conduct of the petitioner further requires a mention as petitioner, who was not entitled to continue in occupation, sought time to vacate, which was granted till 18.07.2021 and he vacated the premises on 18.07.2021 but purposely did not hand over the keys to the respondent.
Therefore it was held that the petitioner after his termination did not have any right or entitlement to continue in occupation of the government accommodation which was allotted to him being in service. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
Picture Source :
