Supreme Court - Daily Orders
G.R Gupta vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 18 August, 2021
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6829 OF 2014
G.R. GUPTA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 29.11.2013 whereby the order of the Single Judge Bench affirming the order passed by the Estate Officer as well as the District Judge in appeal in proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971 [for short ‘the Act’] was not interfered with.
The appellant was an IPS officer. He was on deputation to the Lok Sabha Secretariat from 14.02.1979 to 25.07.1982. Being civil servant on deputation with the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the appellant was allotted Bungalow No.16, Talkatora Road, New Delhi. He was repatriated to his parent department from where he superannuated on 31.12.1993. Since the house was of the pool of Lok Sabha Secretariat, the appellant was required to vacate the same soon after his repatriation but the appellant continued to reside in the Bungalow allotted to him. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1993 and as per rules, he could retain the house for another Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.08.23 period of 8 months but it was only on 27.09.2001, he vacated the 17:08:25 IST Reason:
house in question.2
The Estate Officer, Lok Sabha Secretariat passed an order on 21.11.2003 directing the appellant to pay normal licence fee from 01.01.1994 to 31.08.1994 and double normal licence fee from 01.09.1994 to 27.09.2001. This order was challenged by the Lok Sabha Secretariat in appeal before the District Judge which was allowed on 13.09.2010. The Estate Officer was directed to reassess the damages. The parties were directed to appear before the Estate Officer on 30.09.2010. It is, thereafter, the Estate Officer of Lok Sabha Secretariat passed an order on 13.12.2010 and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.16,11,823/- on account of licence fee at the market rates from 01.09.1994 to 27.09.2001 along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the District Judge, New Delhi was dismissed on 28.11.2011.
The writ petition filed against the order of the Estate Officer and of the District Judge was dismissed by the Single Judge Bench on 14.05.2013. Still aggrieved, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed which was dismissed vide the order impugned in the present appeal.
Before the Division Bench, an argument was raised that the claim of Lok Sabha Secretariat is barred by limitation in view of the judgment of this Court in ‘New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Kalu Ram & Anr.’ reported in (1976) 3 SCC 407 dealing with the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1958 [for short ‘the Act, 1958’].
The Division Bench held that the claim of the Lok Sabha Secretariat falls within the ambit of Article 112 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides limitation of 30 years. 3 Therefore, the claim of the respondent is within the period of limitation and dismissed the appeal.
During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) when a statement was made before this Court on 10.02.2014. Another Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) were deposited in pursuance to the statement made on 31.03.2014. It was on 21.07.2014, leave was granted and the conditional stay was granted on further deposit of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) stand deposited.
The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court are based upon Kalu Ram’ case (supra) wherein claim of damages under Section 7 of the Act, 1958 would be covered by the Limitation Act, 1963. While considering the arguments of limitation in Kalu Ram’s case (supra), this Court held as under:-
“As would appear from the terms of the section, it provides a summary procedure for the recovery of arrears of rent. It was argued that since Section 7 did not put a time limit for taking steps under that section and as the limitation prescribed for a suit to recover the amount did not apply to a proceeding under this section, the High Court was in error in upholding respondent's objection. ………………… It is not questioned that a creditor whose suit is barred by limitation, if he has any other legal remedy permitting him to enforce his claim, would be free to avail of it. But the question in every such case is whether the particular statute permits such a course. Does Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 create a right to realise arrears of rent without any limitation of time ? ……………… Section 7 only provides a special procedure for the realisation of rent in arrears and does not constitute a source or foundation of a right to claim a debt otherwise time-barred. ……………… We are clear that the word 4 "payable" in Section 7, in the context in which it occurs, means "legally recoverable". Admittedly a suit to recover the arrears instituted on the day the order under Section 7 was made would have been barred by limitation. The amount in question was therefore irrecoverable. ………….” A perusal of the aforesaid extract from the judgment would show that the period of limitation would be such which would be applicable if a civil suit for recovery is to be filed. That was a case of recovery of arrears of rent by a Municipal Corporation, which is a State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution only. The reference be made to the judgments of this Court reported as Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar & Anr.,(1998) 5 SCC 91 and Central Warehousing Corporation v. Muncipal Corporation, (1994) Supp 3 SCC 316. The expression State includes three pillars falling within Part V of the Constitution such as Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Thus, for filing of a civil suit to recover the use and occupation charges by and on behalf of the Government, the limitation is 30 years in terms of Article 112 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 which reads as under:-
Description of suit Period of Time from which limitation period begins to run “112. Any suit (except a suit Thirty years When the period before the Supreme Court of limitation in the exercise of its would begin to original jurisdiction) by run under this or on behalf of the Act against a Central Government or any like suit by a State Government, private person.” including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The appellant vacated the premises on 27.09.2001. The proceedings were initiated on 30.01.2001 for the recovery of damages from 01.09.1994. Thus, the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 7 of the Act claiming damages for the use and occupation of the premises would be within the period of 5 limitation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is old and therefore some compassion should be shown to him. The fact is that the appellant was a member of disciplined service that is Indian Police Service but had shown indiscipline at every stage of the proceeding. After completing his deputation period, he should have surrendered the pool house falling to the Lok Sabha Secretariat but he continued to clasp to the house for almost 12 years. As a responsible citizen which the appellant is expected to be he has shown utter disrespect to the rule of law which he was bound to follow as a member of the Indian Police Service.
Since the appellant is shown utter disregard to the discipline and has occupied the house for all these years, we find that the order passed by the Estate Officer imposing damages of Rs.16,11,823/- does not want any interference. The appellant shall deposit the balance amount along with the interest @9% per annum within a period of four months from today. However, on failure of deposit the balance amount along with reduced rate of interest, the interest rate as ordered by the Estate Officer shall be payable.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
…………………………………………J. [HEMANT GUPTA] …………………………………………J. [A.S.BOPANNA] New Delhi 18TH AUGUST, 2021 6 ITEM NO.103 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 6829/2014 G.R GUPTA Appellant(s) VERSUS LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT Respondent(s) Date : 18-08-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Appellant(s) Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Yashish Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Yashaswi SK Chocksey, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Kaustub Anshuraj AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)