Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 March, 2022
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 07 March 2022
+ W.P.(C) 2847/2020 and CM APPL. 9873/2020 (Stay)
SUSHIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Mr. Rishi
Lakhanpal, Advs.
versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak K. Singh, Mr. Sunny
Kumar and Mr. Yashveer Yadav,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
YASHWANT VARMA, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Allow the present writ petition and issue a Writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, thereby, quashing/setting aside
the impugned judgement and order dated 07.03.2020 passed in P.P.A. No.
188/2016, in the interest of justice.
(b) Staying the operation of impugned notice dated 12.03.2020 whereby
24 hours time has been granted to vacate the premises.
(c) Further issue any other appropriate writ, orders or directions, which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
2. The challenge essentially is to the orders passed in proceedings
initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act 1971 ["the Act"]. The record reflects that the premises in question falls
within the precincts of the Andhra Pradesh Bhawan ["the Bhawan"] in New
Delhi. A room in the said premises was originally handed over to one late
Ram Prasad who used to wash and iron the linen of the Bhawan. Over a
period of time and since the workload on the late Ram Prasad increased, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:09.03.2022
10:56:48
said premises which comprised of one room was permitted to be occupied
by him till his demise. It becomes important to note that the one room
tenement was never formally allotted to the late Ram Prasad. After his
demise, the petitioner here is stated to have started rendering the same
services on terms identical to those which were provided by the late Ram
Prasad.
3. As things stood thus, the occupation of the aforesaid room by the
petitioner and his family members appears to have come to the notice of the
Accounts and Audits Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It
was found that the petitioner who was neither an employee of the Bhawan
nor a government servant had been illegally permitted to retain the said
premises and that in any case his case would not stand covered under the
provisions made in the Andhra Pradesh Guest House, New Delhi Allotment
of Quarters Rules, 1989. In view of the above, proceedings under Section 4
of the Act were initiated and ultimately culminated in the passing of an
order of eviction on 26 May 2014 by the Estate Officer. The aforesaid
order was assailed by the petitioner here by way of a statutory appeal. That
appeal has come to be dismissed by the District Judge. It is these orders
which are assailed by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition.
4. It is evident from the aforesaid recordal of facts that the petitioner
here was never employed either by the Government of Andhra Pradesh or
the Bhawan which may have entitled him to an allotment of a quarter in the
premises in question. In any case, the petitioner has been unable to show or
establish that he was eligible in law to be allotted the premises in question.
The petitioner appears to have been permitted to utilise the one room in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:09.03.2022
10:56:48
precincts of the Bhawan merely to facilitate the work that he was
discharging and to provide services to the residents of the Bhawan.
Although the petitioner has along with the writ petition placed a document
dated 7 January 1993 to contend that the same constitutes an order of
allotment, a bare perusal thereof establishes that the submission resting on
the same is untenable. That document only certifies that the petitioner was
residing in the one room quarter in question. Although that certificate
issued by the Additional Comptroller also refers to the premises being
"allotted" to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to place any material
on record which may prove a valid allotment having been made in his
favour or lend credence to what stands recorded in the certificate. Similarly,
the reliance placed on the document appearing at page 93 of the paperbook
is misconceived since that cannot possibly be viewed or construed as
evidence of a valid allotment having been made in favour of the petitioner.
5. What ultimately emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that the
respondents appear to have permitted the petitioner to occupy the aforesaid
room merely to enable him to attend to the laundry work of temporary
visitors to the Bhawan and to wash linen utilised in its functioning. More
importantly, the Court notes that the petitioner has woefully failed to
establish that the said one room accommodation was allotted to the
petitioner to be used for residential purposes along with his family
members. Consequently, and in light of the above, the Court finds no merit
in the challenge raised to the orders impugned.
6. However, the Court bears in mind that a large number of persons said
to be constituting the joint family of the petitioner have been residing in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:09.03.2022
10:56:48
premises for a considerable period of time. The petitioner is also stated to
be the guardian of children with special needs. Bearing in mind the
aforesaid coupled with the fact that the writ petition has remained pending
on the board of this Court since 2020 and an interim order of protection
operated in favour of the petitioner, the circumstances would warrant a
reasonable period of time being provided to enable the petitioner and his
family members to vacate the subject premises. On the aforesaid conclusion
being expressed by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for
the petitioner being accorded the facility to occupy the premises till 30 June
2022 in order to enable him to make alternate arrangements. The Court is of
the considered view that permission to the petitioner to vacate the premises
by 30 June 2022 would thus subserve the ends of justice and equitably
balance the interest of parties.
7. Accordingly, and for the aforesaid reasons, while the challenge to
the impugned orders stands negated, in the larger interest of justice the
Court deems it appropriate to accord the petitioner time till 30 June 2022 to
hand over vacant possession to the respondents. In case the petitioner fails
to abide by the aforesaid direction and timeline, it shall be open to the
respondent to take all coercive steps as may be permissible in law.
8. The writ petition along with the pending application stands disposed
of.
YASHWANT VARMA, J
MARCH 7, 2022
SU
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:09.03.2022
10:56:48
