Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sahil vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 7 September, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A.No.2969/2016
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 Sahil
S/o Late Shri Kuldeep Kumar
R/o 121, Balmiki Sadan
Mandir Marg
New Delhi - 110 001. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Siddharth Tripathi)
Vs.
The NDMC through
Its Secretary
Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg
New Delhi - 110 001. ... Respondent
ORDER
By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The applicant, who is working as a Night Watchman, filed the OA seeking to regularize the Quarter No.121, Balmiki Sadan, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, which is under continuous occupancy of the applicant and his family members after the death of his father, on the same terms and conditions, as was regularized to some other similarly situated RMR employees.
O.A.No.2969/20162
3. It is stated that the father of the applicant died while working as an employee of the respondent Council on 16.01.2012. During his service he was allotted Quarter No.121, Balmiki Sadan, Mandir Marg, New Delhi where he lived for over 30 years along with his 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 07.04.2015 in Case No.317/EO/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 121(1), Balmiki Basti, Mandir Marg, New Delhi and also to pay the entire arrears ie. Rs.34402/- towards arrear of quarter licence fee/damages for the period ending 30.04.14 and subsequent damages @ 9800/ per month w.e.f. 17.01.14 till the actual date of handing over the physical vacant possession of the public premises.
According to the petition, the municipal accommodation at Qt No 121(1) Balmiki Basti, Mandir Marg, New Delhi was allotted to Sh Kuldeep Kumar in the capacity of municipal employees. Shri Kuldeep Kumar expired on 16.01.12. The retention of the quarter was allowed up to 16.01.14. The said quarter is deemed as cancelled w.e.f. 17.01.14 and the respondent was apprised of the position vide letter No.SAA(III)/D-788/DD/MH 2014 dated 30.04.14. The occupation of the quarter by the respondent from 17.01.14 is unauthorized.
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.2969/2016 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 Sh Kuldeep Kumar 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 the sum of Rs.34402/- for the period upto 30.04.14 towards arrear of the quarter licence fee/damages for the period ending 30.04.14 and subsequent damages @ Rs.9800/- per month w.e.f. 17.01.14 till the actual date of handing over the physical vacant possession of the public premises along with subsequent dues, if any, 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 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and the same is still pending.
6. 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 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.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the filing and pendency of the PPA case before the designated Court, against the eviction O.A.No.2969/2016 4 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.
8. The applicant's father and all his 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 occupants 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 O.A.No.2969/2016 5 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 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."
11. 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/