Bombay High Court
Shri. Ram Arjun Palav vs The Director General Of Shipping ... on 1 August, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 24.cwp.3786.13.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3786 OF 2013
Shri. Ram Arjun Palav ]
Age 61 years, ]
Retired UDC in the office of ]
Director General of Shipping ]
Residing at Post Bilwas ]
Taluka Malvan, Dist. Sindhudurg ].. Petitioner
Vs.
1) The Director General of Shipping ]
Zahaj Bhavan, W.H.Marg, ]
Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 ]
]
2) The Asstt. Estate Manager, ]
Government of India, ]
101, M.K.Road, ]
Old C.G.O. Bldg. Annexe ]
3rd floor, Mumbai-400 020 ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Sandeep V. Marne Advocate for Petitioner
Ms. Samiksha Kanani i/b Mr. Suresh Kumar Advocate for
Respondent No.2
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
SANDEEP K.SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 01, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:
1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Rule. By consent rule
is made returnable forthwith.
1 of 5
jdk 2 24.cwp.3786.13.j.doc
2 This petition has been preferred being aggrieved by
the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal Mumbai in Original Application 70 of 2009 preferred by
the petitioner. By the said order, the Original Application came
to be dismissed.
3 The issue in the present case is regarding recovery of
rent at market rate for unauthorized occupation of Government
accommodation.
4 The petitioner was a Upper Division Clerk occupying
the Quarters allotted by Respondent-Department within their
residential colony. He was allotted Quarters No. 23/591, C.G.S.
Colony, S.M. Plot, Sector 7, Antop Hill, Mumbai Type-II with
effect from 6.11.1996. During one of the sudden inspections
carried out by the officials of the Respondent-Department, it
was found that the petitioner had sublet quarters to some other
people. Therefore, the allotment was cancelled vide
cancellation order dated 26.9.1998. The representation by the
petitioner against the order of cancellation came to be rejected.
2 of 5
jdk 3 24.cwp.3786.13.j.doc
The Estate Officer issued show cause notice under Section 4 of
the Public Premises Act, and after hearing, passed eviction
order dated 27.9.2000.
5 The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that
against the eviction order dated 27.9.2000 he approached the
City Civil Court, which, by its order dated 6.3.2002 set aside
the eviction. The Respondent challenged the order of the City
Civil Court by preferring Writ Petition before the High Court,
however, this Writ Petition came to be withdrawn with liberty to
issue a fresh notice and to conduct fresh proceedings in relation
to the eviction. Thereafter on 30.3.2005 fresh notice came to
be issued and on 27.9.2005 eviction order came to be passed.
The petitioner again approached City Civil Court which
dismissed the suit preferred by the petitioner on 17.10.2007.
The petitioner challenged the order of City Civil Court before
this Court and his petition came to be dismissed by order dated
8.2.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out
that though the writ petition was dismissed by order dated
8.2.2008 he was granted three months time to vacate. He also
pointed out that when he approached the City Civil Court
3 of 5
jdk 4 24.cwp.3786.13.j.doc
against the eviction order dated 27.9.2005 though the suit was
dismissed by order dated 17.10.2007, however, stay was
granted in the matter till disposal of the suit, hence, in view
thereof, he was in possession of the premises. Thus, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the
first suit preferred by the petitioner stay was granted and
eventually the eviction was set aside. He submitted that from
the date when the stay was granted by the City Civil Court till
the High Court by order dated 8.2.2008 granted him three
months' time to vacate and he vacated the premises on
5.5.2008, for this period, no recovery of rent, can be made.
6 It is to be noted that it is not disputed by the
petitioner that he misused the allotment of the flat in question
by subletting it. He was therefore, rightfully evicted and also it
is within the rights of the respondents to recover the rent at
market rate. All the litigation that the petitioner has engaged
in, in the City Civil Court and thereafter in the High Court, are at
his own instance and he cannot claim any respite for paying
any rent at market rate for that period.
4 of 5
jdk 5 24.cwp.3786.13.j.doc
7 The purpose of allotment of Government
accommodation to Government employees is to facilitate their
smooth performance at the office. It is a very known fact that
there is always paucity of Government accommodation and
many genuine Government employees have to wait for a long
time before they get Government residential accommodation.
Under such circumstances, any employee misusing the
allotment given to him, must be treated with a firm hand. The
various claims of the present petitioner have already been
raised and decided by various fora such as Estate Office, City
Civil Court and the High Court and it has come out in all these
cases that he has no valid claim. All these facts have been
taken into consideration by the Tribunal and thereafter Original
Application preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
8 Looking to the facts of this case, in our view, no
interference is called for, hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule
is discharged.
[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
kandarkar
5 of 5
