Shri Ram Prakash Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2004 Latest Caselaw 252 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner who was working as Secretary to Chief Operation Officer of Northern Railway and during his service had been allotted the accommodation at C-3/B, Basant Lane, New Delhi. Petitioner admittedly retired on 30.6.1997. Under the Rules, petitioner could have retained the quarter for a period of four months on normal license fee and for further four months on double the license fee. Petitioner however continued to occupy the premises.

2. Respondents themselves were negligent in not promptly initiating proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, leaving the petitioner to continue to enjoy the premises inasmuch as the Estate Officer's Order of eviction came to be passed only on 20th January, 2004.

3. Petitioner seeks to challenge the said Order as also the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge dated 19.2.2004 in appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Estate Officer did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence. The evidence that was sought to be led by the petitioner was that his daughter was studying at Gandharva Mahavidyalaya and till completion of her education, he wanted the premises to be retained. This is hardly a ground in defense after being declared an unauthorized occupant. It was at best an argument of clemency for grant of extension of time. For that purpose petitioner, at best, could have filed his affidavit and the proceedings need not be adjourned to enable him to secure certificates from the said institution, especially when this is not a plea in defense.

5. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's gratuity was not released. Under the Rules, no claim certificate and gratuity need not be released, when petitioner is found to be holding on illegally to government accommodation. Be that as it may, the mere fact that the petitioner wanted to purchase a house and in the absence of release of gratuity, could not purchase the same and therefore could not vacate the accommodation is hardly a tenable ground. Despite the fervent appeals for grant of further time, in my view this is not a case which should call for sympathy and indulgence from the Court. The tendency to retain unauthorizedly Government accommodation for extended periods of time like in the present case from 1st July, 1997, till date, deserves to be curbed. The judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge is a reasoned one dealing with the aspects and grounds raised. No ground is made out for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.