Dev Dutt Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2120 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Judgment delivered on 28.03.2012

+      W.P.(C) 1734/2012

       DEV DUTT SHARMA                                             ..... Petitioner

                     versus

       MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR                        .... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   : Mr R.K. Saini and Mr Vikram Saini
For the Respondent   : Mr Shankar Raju for MCD and
                       Ms Indrani Ghosh for GNCTD




CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                              JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2011 passed in TA

No.1327/2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi. The only issue in the present writ petition is with regard to the amount

that is payable by the petitioner on account of his overstaying in the

accommodation which had been provided to his wife who died on 10.10.1993. It is

an admitted position that the petitioner had overstayed in the said premises and the

same had been vacated only on 31.07.1998. It is also an admitted position that the

petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the said premises beyond the period

which was permissible on account of death of an employee. The only issue that

arises for consideration is what is the quantum of the damages that are liable to be

paid by the petitioner for the unauthorized occupation of the said premises.

2. Initially, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition

being WP(C) No. 5877/2001 which was disposed of by an order dated 21.05.2002.

Primarily, in that writ petition, the petitioner had sought release of the terminal

benefits of his deceased-wife and family pension. The learned counsel for the

respondent at that point of time had raised the issue of illegal retention of the living

quarters which had been allotted to the wife of the petitioner beyond the period of

authorized stay. In that context, a learned Single Judge of this Court by virtue of

the said order dated 21.05.2002 had directed as under:-

"Taking into consideration the aforesaid averments, in any case, the petitioner should have been entitled to the pensionery benefits in respect of his wife within a period of two months from the date of vacation of quarter. Thus the petitioner should have been released the benefits at least on or before 30th September, 1998. If any amount was due from the petitioner, the same could have been adjusted against the amount payable to the petitioner.

In view thereof, a direction is issued that the terminal benefits including family pension as per the rules and regulations of the respondent payable on the demise of the wife of the petitioner be now paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from today after making adjustments for the dues payable from the petitioner

without interest. No interest is liable to be paid by the petitioner since the petitioner is not being granted any interest on the amount not paid to him till vacation of the quarter. The petitioner would however be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from 1.10.1998 till the date of payment on the said amount. Interest will also be payable on the delayed amount of retiral benefits already paid to the petitioner including gratuity on the same basis from 1.10.1998 till date of payment. The petitioner will also execute the necessary documents as may be required."

3. Thereafter, the matter was taken in appeal by the petitioner herein by way of

Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 606/2002 which was dismissed by an order

dated 19.08.2002. The only issue raised before the Appellate Court was with

regard to the quantum of interest. The petitioner had wanted 18% interest, whereas

the learned Single Judge had only allowed 9% interest.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) No.

8262/2006 in which the petitioner had challenged the act of deducting a sum of Rs

90,472/- as damages towards unauthorized occupation without following the

procedure prescribed in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)

Act, 1971 and, in particular, the provisions of Section 7 thereof. The writ petition

got transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and was re-numbered as TA

No. 1327/2009. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order in that Transfer

Petition on 21.07.2011, wherein the Tribunal held that the matter had stood

concluded by the High Court by virtue of its order dated 21.05.2002 in the earlier

writ petition and, therefore, the Tribunal had nothing further to say.

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length on this issue. While it is

true that the learned Single Judge of this Court had directed that an amount which

was due from the petitioner could be adjusted while paying the terminal benefits in

respect of the petitioner's wife, there had been no determination of the exact

quantum of the amount payable for unauthorized occupation under the said Act.

6. It is now agreed between the parties that the amount that has been recovered

shall be treated as an amount having been withheld and the same shall continue to

be withheld till a final determination is made by the Estate Officer in terms of the

procedure to be followed under Section 7 for determining the quantum of damages

for unauthorized occupation. It is also clearly agreed by the petitioner that he shall

not raise any plea of limitation when the question of determination of the quantum

of damages is taken up by the Estate Officer, who, according to the respondent No.

1, shall initiate the proceedings under Section 7 of the said Act within a period of

one month. We also hope that the proceedings will be concluded as expeditiously

as possible and preferable within three months. No unnecessary adjournment

would be taken by either of the parties.

7. If any amount is found to be refundable to the petitioner, that amount shall

be refunded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it was

payable till the date of realization. On the other hand, if the computation of

damages is more than the amount which had been withheld, the petitioner would be

liable to pay interest in terms of the said Act.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J MARCH 28, 2012 BG