Delhi High Court
Mrs. Sarita Shrma vs Chariman, Ndmc And Ors. on 2 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: 109 (2004) DLT 123, 2004 (72) DRJ 407
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 6.8.2001 issued by the Assistant Director (Estates) of the NDMC. By the impugned letter dated 6.8.2001, the petitioner has been treated as an unauthorised occupant w.e.f. 01.03.95 and has been shown to be liable to pay damages at market rate for the period of unauthorised occupation. The impugned letter also indicated that in case the premises in question and the damages/arrears are not paid then action under Sections 5 and 7 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) would be initiated against the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not hand over the possession as directed in the impugned letter dated 6.8.2001 and did not pay the damages demanded, proceedings under the said Act had been initiated.
3. The present writ petition was filed thereafter in which the petitioner, by an interim order, was protected against the dispossession and payment of damages. The proceedings before the Estate Officer have, thereafter, been stalled.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the premises in question (Quarter No C-43 (II), Palika Kunj, Karbla, New Delhi) was initially allotted to the petitioner's mother (Smt Sushilavati) in June 1998 in her capacity as an Assistant Teacher with the NDMC. The petitioner had also been appointed as a nursery teacher by the respondent-NDMC on 15.07.1987. However, at the time of allotment of the premises in question to the petitioner's mother, the petitioner was not residing with her mother. Subsequently, on 01.09.1989, the petitioner moved in with her mother (Smt Sushilavati) and shared the accommodation in question with her. She informed the respondent about this and, accordingly, the respondent stopped paying House Rent Allowance to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.88 by an order dated 07.03.90.
5. On 31.10.94, the petitioner's mother (Smt Sushilavati) was due to retire. However, before such retirement on 10.10.94, the petitioner as well as her mother presented an application in prescribed format for regularisation of the allotment in favor of the petitioner in place of her mother on the latter's superannuation. That application has not, till date, been disposed of by any order. However, the impugned letter has been issued on 6.8.2001 in which it is stated that the request for regularisation had not been acceded to. The reasons for the same are indicated in the impugned letter dated 6.8.2001 which are as under:
"But your request has not been acceded to by the authority for regularisation of the aforesaid quarter on the grounds that since the allottee has expired, the purpose of regularising the quarter does not arise, as the quarter is regularised in the name of married daughter, on the request of the allottee to help retiree in distress."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds mentioned for not regularising the quarter in favor of the petitioner are not spelt out in the policy. In fact these are no grounds at all. The allotment that is to be regularised in favor of a married daughter is to be considered de hors the question of whether she would be in a position to help the parent who has retired. The fact that the petitioner's mother subsequently retired also has no bearing on the issue at hand. In fact, as learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out, the Office Memorandum dated 29.2.2000 also makes it clear that a married daughter, working in an eligible office, will be eligible for regularisation/allotment of alternative accommodation irrespective of the fact that the retiring official has a son and is in a position to maintain the parents. The ground mentioned in the impugned letter dated 6.8.2001 for not acceding to the request of regularisation is not spelt out by the policy and is untenable. No other grounds have been reflected by virtue of which the regularisation of the allotment could be denied to the petitioner. In any event, the policy itself makes it clear that it would not make any difference whether the regularisation is being sought by a married daughter or a son as long as the person seeking regularisation is also entitled to such allotment. There is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the quarter in question and since no formal order had been passed on the application for regularisation, the case, in any event has to be dealt with under the Office Memorandum dated 29.2.2000 which clearly allows such regularisation.
7. In this view of the matter, the impugned letter dated 6.8.2001 is set aside and the allotment of the premises in question is directed to be regularised in favor of the petitioner. It goes without saying that all proceedings pursuant to the impugned letter dated 6.8.2001 are also set aside. The petitioner shall clear all arrears of license fee that are legally payable by her within one month from today.
8. The writ petition is allowed and is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
