R.D.Mishra vs Uoi And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 120 Del

$~R33
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                       Date of decision: January 08, 2013
+                           W.P.(C) 3892/2001
       R.D.MISHRA                                   ..... Petitioner
                Represented by: Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr.Advocate with
                Ms.Zubeda Begum, Mr.Sumeet Batra, Ms.Ankita Gupta,
                Advocates.
                     versus

       UOI AND ORS                      ..... Respondents
                Represented by: None.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

1. Order dated September 24, 1999 cancelling allotment of Quarter No.3-LF Todar Mal Square, New Delhi made in favour of the petitioner, against which appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated July 28, 2000 compelled the writ petitioner to file O.A. No.2339/2000 which has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide impugned order dated June 7, 2001.

2. The cancellation of the quarter was on the ground that the petitioner, to whom the quarter was allotted as a licensee had sub-let the same.

3. As per the petitioner he had not sub-let the quarter. His daughter and his son-in-law were residing in the quarter with him.

4. We are not inclined to go into the merit of the matter and proposed to dispose of the writ petition after quashing the impugned orders for the reason the petitioner voluntary surrender the quarter on April 5, 2002 and has thereafter superannuated from service on July 31, 2003. All dues were settled. The petitioner received terminal benefits and is currently receiving a pension. But only would reflect that it does happen in life that a father

accommodates his daughter and son-in-law, may be by giving them exclusive occupation of his house and suffers inconvenience for himself. It would not be sub-letting as technically understood since no rent would be received. It would be more a case of permitting a daughter and her husband to occupy the premises as a gratuitous occupant. The misdeamnour would if the government accommodation taken on a meager licence fee is let-out at current market rent.

5. Accordingly we dispose of the writ petition noting as aforesaid, quashing the order dated September 24, 1999, the order rejecting the departmental appeal dated July 28,000 as also the order dated June 7, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA.No.2339/2000.

6. O.A. No.2339/2000 is allowed in terms of the prayer made therein.

7. There shall be no order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 08, 2013//skb//