Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajiv vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 7 September, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A.No.2970/2016
Order Reserved on 31.08.2016
Order pronounced on 07.09.2016
Hon'ble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A)
Shri Rajiv (Aged about 35 years)
S/o Late Shri Mawasi
R/o 184(1), Balmiki Sadan
NDMC Quarters, Mandir Marg
New Delhi - 110 001. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Siddharth Tripathi)
v.
The NDMC
Through its Secretary
Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg
New Delhi - 110 001. ... Respondent
O R D E R (Common)
By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The applicant, who is working as Safai Karamchari, filed the OA seeking to regularize the Quarter No.184(1), Balmiki Sadan, NDMC Quarters, New Delhi 110 001, which is under continuous occupancy of the applicant and his family members after the death of his mother, on O.A. No.2970/2016 2 same terms and conditions, as was regularized to some other similarly situated RMR employees.
3. It is stated that the mother of the applicant died while working as an employee of the respondent Council on 12.08.2011. During her service she was allotted Quarter No.184(1), Balmiki Sadan, NDMC Quarters, New Delhi-110 001, where she lived for over 30 years along with her family, including the applicant.
4. The Estate Officer, on an application made by the respondent under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 [hereinafter called as P.P.Act, 1971] for eviction and for recovery of arrears and damage charges, passed an Eviction Order on 18.05.2015 in Case No.336/EO/MH/14, which reads as under:
"The New Delhi Municipal Council hereinafter called the petitioner filed a petition under Section 5 & 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971 through its Dy. Director (MH) duly authorized by the petitioner to move the present petition against the respondent thereby prayed that necessary order be passed directing the respondent and all other unauthorized occupants to vacate the public premises ie Qtr No 184(I), Valmiki Sadan, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, and also to pay the entire arrears ie. Rs.16748/- towards arrear of quarter licence fee/damages for the period ending 29.07.14 and subsequent damages @ 9800/ per month w.e.f. 30.07.14 till the actual date of handing over the physical vacant possession of the public premises.
According to the petition, the municipal accommodation was allotted to L/H of Smt Maya in the capacity of municipal employee. The said quarter is deemed as cancelled wef. 29.07.14.
In pursuance of sub section (3) of Section 7 and sub section (I) of section 4 & in exercise of power conferred by Sub Section 2-A of Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act 1971., Notices were issued to the respondent as well as petitioner. The respondent didn't file any written submission on the date of hearing in response to the show cause notice issued.O.A. No.2970/2016 3
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971, I hereby order the respondent and all other unauthorized occupants to vacate the said premises within 15 days from the date of issue of this order. In event of refusal or failure to comply with this order within the period specified above the said L/H of Late Smt. Maya and all other unauthorized occupants of the public premises in question are liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be by the use of such force as may be necessary.
In exercise of the power conferred by sub section (i) and 2A of section 7 of the said Act I also hereby order the respondent to pay towards arrear of the quarter licence fee/damages and subsequent damage.
Parties be informed accordingly, Sd/-
ESTATE OFFICER"
5. When the applicant came to know about the fact of regularizing the quarters of similarly placed RMR Employees on compassionate grounds, the applicant filed PPA in the year 2015 before the learned District and Sessions Judge Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and the same is still pending.
6. It is further submitted that the applicant along with certain others, who were also similarly placed like the applicant filed WP(C) No.4357 and 4358 of 2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, by an Order dated 29.07.2016.
7. Applicant made a representation dated 19.04.2016 requesting to regularize the quarter on compassionate grounds. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent regularized the quarters O.A. No.2970/2016 4 in favour of various certain other persons, who were also similarly placed, on compassionate grounds, and not considering of the case of the applicant for the same benefit is arbitrary and illegal.
8. The learned counsel further submits that the filing and pendency of the PPA case before the designated Court, against the Eviction Orders passed by the Estate Officer under the provisions of the P.P.Act, 1971 does not come in his way in filing the present OA. The learned counsel also submits that since the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dismissing the WP(C) No.4357 and 4358 of 2016, as withdrawn on 29.07.2016, granted liberty to the applicants to approach this Tribunal and hence, the present OA is maintainable simultaneously at the same time, for same purpose, along with the said PPA case.
9. The applicant's mother and all her family members, including the applicant, who ever staying in the quarter, were declared as unauthorized occupants and were directed to vacate the premises by the Estate Officer under the provisions of the P.P.Act, 1971. Once a Government servant is held to be in occupation of a public premises as an unauthorized occupant within the meaning of the P.P.Act, 1971, and appropriate orders are passed thereunder, the remedy to such occupant lies, as provided under the said Act. In fact the applicant, accordingly, filed a PPA case before the designated Court, and the said case is pending.
O.A. No.2970/20165
10. It is not in dispute that the applicant is aggrieved by the Eviction Orders passed by the Estate Officer under the P.P.Act, 1971 and that he filed the said PPA Case which is pending as on date. It is true that the Hon'ble High Court while dismissing the Writ Petitions as withdrawn granted the liberty to approach this Tribunal. However, it has not adjudicated before granting the said liberty whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction or not with respect to the subject matter of the OA. Hence, the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court cannot be construed that the Hon'ble High Court has conferred jurisdiction on this Tribunal. It can be understood that the said liberty is in accordance with law, only.
11. In Union of India v. Rasila Ram and Others, (2001) 10 SCC 623, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with maintainability of OA before this Tribunal against order of Estate Officer passed under P.P.Act, 1971 and against any consequential actions, held as under:
"1. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the order of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in a batch of applications before it recording a finding that an order passed by the competent authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, for eviction would also come within the purview and jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal constituted under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. the Tribunal by the impugned order has construed the expression 'service matter' defined in Section 3 (q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and because of the expression 'any other matter whatsoever' occurring in Clause (v) thereof, it has come to the conclusion that the eviction of unauthorised occupants from the Government quarter would tantamount to a service matter, and therefore, Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the same, in view of the over riding effect given to the Act by virtue of Section 33 of the said Act.
2. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Eviction Act") was enacted for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises. to attract the said provisions, it must be held that the premises was a public premises, as defined under the said Act, and the occupants must be held unauthorised occupants, as defined under the said Act. Once, a Government servant is held to be in occupation of a public premises as an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of Eviction Act, and appropriate orders are passed thereunder, the remedy to such occupants lies, as provided under the said O.A. No.2970/2016 6 Act. By no stretch of imagination the expression any other matter in Section 3(q)(v) of the Administrative Act would confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to go into the legality of the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In this view of the matter, the impugned assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal over an order passed by the competent authority under the Eviction Act must be held to be invalid and without jurisdiction. This order of the Tribunal accordingly stands set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed."
12. In view of the aforesaid categorical declaration of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the OA is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha) (V. Ajay Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nsnrvak/