Awadesh Kumar Yadav v. Estate Officer & Asstt Director of Estates (Litigation)

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 'gsr'.. (Corrected and released on 26th October, 2018).

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 17th September, 2018. + AWADESH KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Dhruv Grover and Ms. Aishwarya Anand, Advs. Versus ESTATE OFFICER & ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF ESTATES (LITIGATION) ...Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. with Mr. Harvesh Panwar & Ms. Amita Gupta, Dy. Directors, Directorate of Estates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the judgment [dated 2nd February, 2017 in CIS-PPA-08- 2016 (CNR-DLST01-001806-2015) of District & Sessions Judge (South) exercising powers of an Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)], of dismissal of appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order [dated 17th July, 2015 in EC/262/AD/Lit/2015/T-II/Sub of the Estate Officer] of eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation allotted to the petitioner by virtue of his employment, on account of sub-letting thereof by the petitioner. 2. The petition first came up before this Court on 30th May, 2017 when eviction of the petitioner was restrained and notice of the petition issued. The said interim order has continued till now. 3. During the hearing on 8th August, 2018, it was enquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner as to what is there to show that the petitioner was / is in occupation of the premises since the date of allotment thereof. It was further enquired as to where the petitioner was residing prior to the said allotment, who are the members of the family of the petitioner since the date of allotment, what is their vocation / age and what is their recorded address with their respective employer/s / educational institution/s. The senior counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was not present in the Court and the challenge in this petition was confined to the violation of the principles of natural justice. Observing that the petitioner having approached this Court in exercise of equitable jurisdiction, after exhausting the statutory remedy available, was not worthy of any equity if found to be abusing the process of the Court to perpetuate his unauthorized occupation of the premises, the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit on the said lines as well as on all other aspects which the petitioner may deem appropriate in this respect and to remain present in person on the next date of hearing. 4. On the next date of hearing i.e. 29th August, 2018, the senior counsel for the petitioner on instructions stated that the petitioner, to put a quietus to the matter, was willing to vacate the government accommodation in his possession and to deliver vacant peaceful physical possession thereof to the respondent within 30 days. 5. It was on 29th August, 2018 enquired, when the cancellation of allotment was effected. It was informed that cancellation of allotment of the government accommodation allotted to the petitioner was effected on 25th September, 2013. It was further enquired, whether any proceedings under Section 7 of the PP Act had been initiated. The answer was in the negative. It was thus observed in the order dated 29th August, 2018 that even if the petitioner was to so vacate the premises, the liability of the petitioner for damages for use and occupation of the premises for the last approximately five years would still remain. 6. The senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, on 29th August, 2018 stated that the petitioner was willing for a reasonable settlement qua damages also. It was however contended that the petitioner should not be disqualified from fresh allotment of government accommodation, if in the course of remaining service of about 20 to 25 years, becomes eligible therefor. 7. Directing the counsel for the respondent to obtain instructions, the proceedings were adjourned to today. 8. Today, the