Delhi High Court
Sunita Sharma vs Uoi And Ors. on 17 February, 2009
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2798/1996
Date of decision : 17.02.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :
#SUNITA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
! Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
versus
$UOI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
^ Through: Ms. Monika Garg, Advocate.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
Judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter
alia for issuing a writ of certiorari, quashing the rejection letter dated
29.05.1996 issued by the respondent, rejecting the case of the petitioner for
regularization of Quarter No.1893, Timarpur, Delhi and for quashing of the
eviction order dated 04.07.1996.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the
W.P.(C) 2798/1996 Page 1 of
petitioner, Sh.Amar Kishan who was working as an Assistant in the High
Court of Delhi, sought premature retirement and thereafter, voluntarily
retired from the service w.e.f. 19.08.1986. Prior thereto, on 18.04.1986,
the petitioner was given an appointment as LDC in the High Court of Delhi
on compassionate grounds. As the petitioner was residing with her father as
a member of the family in the aforesaid government accommodation, she
applied to the respondent for regularization of the said quarter in her name,
vide her representation dated 15.01.1987, in terms of office memorandum
dated 01.05.1981. However, the respondent did not take any action on the
aforesaid representation of the petitioner on the ground that the allotment
file was not available in the department. In the meantime, on 30.05.1987,
the petitioner was relieved from her duties by the respondent No. 4.
However, she was taken back in service w.e.f. 24.10.1987 and thereafter,
she continues to remain in uninterrupted service till date. It is stated by the
counsel for the petitioner that ever since her joining service with the
respondent No. 4, the petitioner has continued to reside in the aforesaid
government accommodation and the same is the position even today. He
further states that the petitioner has also not drawn any house rent
allowance.
3. After the petitioner was taken back in service on 24.10.1987,
W.P.(C) 2798/1996 Page 2 of
she made a representation dated 01.12.1987 addressed to the respondent
No. 2 requesting him to regularize the staff quarter in her name. After a
time lag of almost nine years, vide letter dated 29.05.1996, the respondent
No. 3 informed the respondent No. 4 that the request of the petitioner for
regularization of the staff quarter in her favour was rejected on account of
break in her service w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to 23.10.1987. On 02.12.1987, the
father of the petitioner expired and the petitioner continued to reside in the
said premises with her widowed mother. After a gap of about five years
from the date the petitioner made a representation to regularize the staff
quarter in her favour, the respondent No. 3 issued a notice to show cause
dated 28.04.1992 addressed to the deceased father of the petitioner,
informing him that the allotment of the government accommodation in his
favour stood cancelled w.e.f. 19.12.1986, as intimated vide letter dated
15.01.1987. He was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why he
should not be evicted from the government accommodation. Subsequent
thereto, after over four years from the date of issue of notice to show cause,
the respondent No. 3 issued an order dated 4.7.1996, under Section 5 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 addressed to
the family of late Shri Amar Kishan, calling upon them to vacate the staff
quarter within 15 days from the date of publication of the order of eviction.
W.P.(C) 2798/1996 Page 3 of
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection letter dated 29.05.1996 and
order dated 04.07.1996 issued by the respondents No. 1 to 3, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the complete silence maintained by the respondents on the application
of the petitioner for regularization for almost nine years and thereafter the
refusal to regularize the staff quarter in her favour, is extremely unfair and
arbitrary, particularly, since the petitioner has been allowed to remain in the
aforesaid premises, even after the demise of her father. He submits that in
case the respondents No.1 to 3 were of the opinion that the government
accommodation could not have been regularized in favour of the petitioner,
they should not only have taken appropriate steps by cancelling the
allotment in question that existed on the records in favour of the father of
the petitioner, but should also have demanded from the petitioner penal rent
for the period in question i.e., w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to 23.10.1987. Having
chosen to remain silent throughout for a period of nine years and having
failed to take a decision on the pending representation made by the
petitioner in the year 1987, the petitioner cannot be confronted with the
aforesaid order of rejection. He urges that the aforesaid order has caused
great injustice to the petitioner, more so when she was taken back in service
by respondent No.4, w.e.f. 24.10.1987 and has remained in service
uninterrupted till date. He submits that even otherwise, the respondents
W.P.(C) 2798/1996 Page 4 of
failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is entitled to a
residential government accommodation in her own right and on this ground
also, the rejection letter is liable to be quashed.
5. Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the
respondent could not act on the request of the petitioner for regularization of
the government accommodation on account of non availability of the
allotment file within the department. She states that the said file remains
untraceable even till date and that the respondent could construct part of its
file based on the available documents and papers submitted by the
petitioner and only on perusal of the said documents, did the respondent
cancel the allotment in the name of the father of the petitioner, on his
retirement from service on 19.08.1986. It is also reiterated on behalf of the
respondents No. 1 to 3 that the petitioner's request for regularization of the
government accommodation in her favour could not be acceded to as there
was a break in service and hence, she has remained an unauthorized
occupant of the staff quarter w.e.f. 19.12.1986 and is liable to pay damages
under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
6. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case and particularly taking into consideration the fact that the
respondents No. 1 to 3 chose to remain silent for a period of about nine
W.P.(C) 2798/1996 Page 5 of
years, in respect of the pending representation made by the petitioner on
01.12.1987, seeking regularization of the staff quarter in her favour, it has
to be concluded that to saddle the petitioner with damages on the strength
of the rejection letter issued after about nine years, i.e., on 29.05.1996
would cause great injustice and hardship to the petitioner. If the
respondents No. 1 to 3 were not inclined to favourably consider the request
of the petitioner for regularization of the staff quarters in her name, it was
incumbent upon them to intimate their decision to the petitioner within a
reasonable time, so that the liability of paying damages would not befall on
her. Silence for a period of about nine years can by no stretch of
imagination, be termed as reasonable.
7. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is
entitled to a government accommodation in her own right and that she has
not drawn any house rent allowance for all these years. Hence, the case of
the petitioner for seeking regularization in her own right should have been
taken into consideration by the respondent while taking a decision on her
application for regularization. Having failed to act with reasonable dispatch
and having slept over the application of the petitioner for regularization for
nine long years, and moreover, having failed to initiate any steps for
repossession of the Government accommodation from the petitioner, the
W.P.(C) 2798/1996 Page 6 of
respondents No.1 to 3 cannot be permitted to rise from their deep slumber
and slap a rejection letter on the petitioner, followed by a claim damages for
the period of purported unauthorized occupation. At best, the respondent
could have claimed penal rent from the petitioner for the accommodation,
the period w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to 23.10.1987.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned
order dated 04.07.1996 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the staff
quarter is quashed. The rejection letter dated 29.05.1996 is also set aside.
The respondent is directed to take a fresh decision on the representation of
the petitioner for being granted the staff quarter under her occupation, in
her own right, as per her entitlement.
9. At this stage, counsel for the respondent draws the attention of
this Court to the order dated 4.9.1996, whereunder the petitioner was
granted an interim injunction, staying her dispossession from the staff
quarter, subject to her continuing to pay rent/damages in respect of
occupation of aforesaid premises. She submits that the petitioner has not
paid any amount despite the aforesaid order though she has continued to
remain in occupation thereof for all these years. In these circumstances, the
petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of rent for the staff quarter to the
respondents No.1 to 3, for the entire period for which the same has
W.P.(C) 2798/1996 Page 7 of
remained unpaid, i.e. w.e.f.20.12.1986, till date. The amount payable by the
petitioner shall be computed by the respondent along with simple interest
payable thereon @ 10% per annum with effect from the date the amounts
fell due and payable, till realization. The respondents shall also calculate the
penal rent payable by the petitioner for the period w.e.f.1.6.1987 to
23.10.1987. The respondents shall intimate the same to the petitioner within
six weeks. The petitioner shall pay the amount within six weeks therefrom.
10. The writ petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs.
HIMA KOHLI,J
FEBRUARY 17, 2009
rkb
W.P.(C) 2798/1996 Page 8 of
