Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Union Of India on 10 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
JUDGE HOLDING C/C OF XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY
Dated on this the 10th Day of March 2017
Present
Sri. A.VIJAYAN B.A.(Law), LL.M.
LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and holding c/c of
XXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/2013
Appellant :
Smt.B.E.Veena, major, W/o D.G.Umapathy,
R/o No.810, 32 'A' Block Type II, CRPF Group
Centre, Yelahanka, Bangalore-560 064
[by Smt V.Rani Prakash, advocate]
V/s
Respondents:
1. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
represented by its Secretary, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police-Cum-
Estate Officer, Group Centre, CRPF,
Yelahanka, Bangalore-560 064.
[by advocate Sri M.G.V.]
JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of 2 M.A.No.3/2013 Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 to call for the records on the file of the respondents; set aside the eviction order dt.3.11.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, direct the respondent to permit the appellant to continue in the schedule quarters allotted to her husband as per the existing norms and conditions or in the alternative, direct the respondents to allot the alternative quarters in Type-II; and for such other relief, this Court deems fit to grant to meet the ends of justice.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Appellant are as follows:-
The Appellant-Smt.B.E.Veena is a legally wedded wife of Sri D.G.Umapathy. D.G.Umapathy is presently working as Assistant Sub Inspector on promotion at Chattisghad w.e.f. 25.5.2011. The appellant is having a son by name Chi.Harishith who is aged 14 years and he is studying in 10th standard in Kendra Vidyalaya. 3 M.A.No.3/2013 When D.G.Umapathy was working in Bengaluru, he was allotted quarters No.810, 32 'A' block, Type-II CRPF Group Centre, Yelahanka, Bengaluru on 17.12.2007. Even though D.G.Umapathy was transferred to Chattisghad, the appellant and her son by name Chi. Harishith continued to stay in the aforesaid quarters. On the basis of a false complaint filed by one Smt.Manjula, the 2nd respondent has passed an Order of eviction dt.2.7.2011 on disciplinary grounds directing the appellant to vacate the quarters allotted by 2nd respondent. Since the husband of appellant Sri D.G.Umapathy is working at Chattisghad, the appellant has filed a Miscellaneous Appeal No.44/2001 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the Order of eviction dt.2.7.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and obtained exparte interim order of stay.
The request made by D.G.Umapathy for retention of appellant in the quarters was turned down and the 2nd respondent has passed an order on 29.8.2011 that damage rate of rent of Rs.6603/- will be recovered from 4 M.A.No.3/2013 the salary of D.G.Umapathy w.e.f. 2.8.2011. During pendency of M.A.No.44/2011, D.G.Umapathy came to Bengaluru on leave. The appellant has withdrawn M.A.No.44/2011 on 2.12.2011 and thereafter D.G.Umapathy has filed M.A.53/2011 challenging the order of eviction passed by the 2nd respondent. During pendency of the above appeal, the 2nd respondent had issued a notice dt.14.1.2012 along with office order dt.14.1.2012. In the Office Order, the 2nd respondent has withdrawn the eviction notice dt.17.12.2011 on the ground that the eviction notice has been issued without complying the procedure contemplated under Sec.4 of the Act. In the notice D.G.Umapathy is directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 28.1.2012. Since D.G.Umapathy was working at Chattisghad, he appeared before 2nd respondent on 28.1.2012 and sought permission to appear before him and to place all material before him and also sought two weeks time to submit all documentary evidence. The 2nd respondent adjourned the enquiry to 5 M.A.No.3/2013 4.12.2012. The document sought by the appellant under the Right to Information Act has been turned down by the Public Information Officer vide endorsement dt.28.1.2012. Under these circumstances, on 4.12.2012, the appellant appeared before the 2nd respondent and filed reply statement along with the relevant records. The appeal filed by D.G.Umapathy was also withdrawn on account of Memo dt.6.6.2012 filed by the respondent before this Court in M.A.53/2011. The 2nd respondent without considering the statement of objection filed by the appellant supported by documentary evidence and by ignoring CRPF Family Accommodation Rules 2008 and the Circulars issued thereof has erroneously and arbitrarily passed an order of eviction on 3.11.2012 under Sub Section 1(1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 calling upon D.G.Umapathy to vacate the schedule premises within 15 days from the date of publication of the Order and in the event of refusal or 6 M.A.No.3/2013 failure to comply the said Order within the specified period, the appellant is liable to be evicted from the said premises if need be, by use of such force. Thereafter the appellant has submitted her reply to the 2nd respondent on 28.12.2012. Despite the reply, steps have been taken to implement the Order of eviction dt.3.11.2012 by the 2nd respondent. Hence the appellant has filed this Appeal to set aside the impugned eviction Order passed by the 2nd respondent as the same is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the rules of natural justice. As can be seen from the eviction order dt.3.11.2012, it is crystal clear that the 2nd respondent has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971. The 2nd respondent has not considered the statement of objections filed by the appellant supported by documentary evidence. The 2nd respondent has not properly applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and passed an order of 7 M.A.No.3/2013 eviction erroneously and arbitrarily. In view of the illegal order passed by the 2nd respondent, the appellant and her son have been put to great hardship and inconvenience as the education of son of appellant is being disturbed on account of eviction order passed by the 2nd respondent. As per the CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, 2008, allotment and occupation of Family accommodation in CRPF and subsequent Circular dt.28.7.2009 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is crystal clear that maximum retention period of five years and posting to Jammu & Kashmir/N.E.Region/L.W.E area as per Rule 5(25) of CRPF Family Accommodation Rules 2008 and withdrawn and all such personnel may be allowed to retain the family quarters till their actual postings in these area. D.G.Umapathy is working in a place in which the area covers the circular dt.28.7.2009, as such the appellant and her son are legally entitled to continue in the quarters. Hence the impugned eviction Order passed by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable. 8 M.A.No.3/2013 The cause of action for this Appeal arose on 3.11.2012 well within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence the appellant has prayed to call for the records on the file of the respondent; set aside the eviction order dt.3.11.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, direct the respondent to permit the appellant to continue in the schedule quarters allotted to her husband as per the existing norms and conditions or in the alternative, direct the respondents to allot the alternative quarters in Type-II; and for such other relief, this Court deems fit to grant to meet the ends of justice.
3. The respondents filed objection to the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the appellant by denying all the averments.
4. During the course of arguments, learned advocate for respondents has submitted that the representation submitted by appellant's husband 9 M.A.No.3/2013 ASI/IRO D.G.Umapathy through Commandant 139 Bn., CRPF vide letter No.A.II-1/2011-12-139 dt.20.7.2011 requesting to allow him to continue in occupation of government quarters was placed before Housing Management Committee. The issue was delivered in the HMC on 23.8.2011. After due deliberations it was decided by the Committee not to allow him to continue in the occupation of the Government quarters on disciplinary grounds and his submission that he is serving in LWE area does not have any relevancy in the instant case. As the said official has not vacated the quarters, penal rent recovery order was issued as per the decision taken in the HMC Meeting vide office Order No.A.II-5/2011-12- GC Bldg dt.29.8.2011. Thereafter the appellant filed M.A.No.44/2011 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bengaluru. In the meantime the ASI/RO D.G.Umapathy has also filed M.A.No.53/2011 before the Vacation Judge, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. In M.A.No.53/2011 filed by D.G.Umapathy, this Court in 10 M.A.No.3/2013 its order dt.9.12.2011 observed that there was non- compliance of Sec.4 of the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)Act, 1971 before taking action u/s 5(1) of the Act. As such the notice for eviction dt.17.12.2011 issued by DIGP cum Estate Officer was withdrawn only on account of procedural error. Subsequently fresh notice u/s 4(2)(ii)(b) of the Act was issued to D.G.Umapathy vide Estate Office Notice No. A.II-5/2011-12-GC Bldg dt.14.1.2012. On the first complaint against the appellant where she has been found at fault for misbehaving with other inmates of the block, she was advised verbally to desist from such activities, but she did not mend her ways. Errors were made to resolve the issue on second and subsequent complaint made by the block inmates, but it did not yield desired results. Hence the matter was referred to the Dispute Redressal Committee already constituted to enquiry into such complaints. The Committee had conducted a discreet enquiry into the complaints, Prima facie, it has been established by the 11 M.A.No.3/2013 Committee that the appellant, wife of ASI/RO D.G.Umapathy indulges in frequent quarrels with block senior, other inmates, uses abusive language and vitiate the peace and tranquility of the campus. Under these circumstances without any option, respondent No.2 in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.5(1) of the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)Act, 1971, served eviction notice dt.3.12.2012 to D.G.Umapathy demanding to vacate the quarter by giving him 15 days time, failing which eviction process would be initiated.
5. Heard on both sides.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief claimed?
2. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
12 M.A.No.3/2013
1. In the Affirmative.
2. As per final order, for the following reasons:-
REASONS
8.Point No.1:The appellant has preferred this Appeal on the grounds that the she is a legally wedded wife of Sri D.G.Umapathy. D.G.Umapathy is presently working as Assistant Sub Inspector on promotion at Chattisghad w.e.f. 25.5.2011. When D.G.Umapathy was working in Bengaluru, he was allotted quarters No.810, 32 'A' block, Type-II CRPF Group Centre, Yelahanka, Bengaluru on 17.12.2007. Even though D.G.Umapathy was transferred to Chattisghad, the appellant and her son by name Chi. Harishith continued to stay in the aforesaid quarters. On the basis of a false complaint filed by one Smt.Manjula, the 2nd respondent has passed an Order of eviction dt.2.7.2011 on disciplinary grounds directing the appellant to vacate the quarters allotted by 2nd respondent. Since the husband of appellant Sri D.G.Umapathy is working at Chattisghad, the 13 M.A.No.3/2013 appellant has filed a Miscellaneous Appeal No.44/2001 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the Order of eviction dt.2.7.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and obtained exparte interim order of stay. The request made by D.G.Umapathy for retention of appellant in the quarters was turned down and the 2nd respondent has passed an order on 29.8.2011 that damage rate of rent of Rs.6603/- will be recovered from the salary of D.G.Umapathy w.e.f. 2.8.2011. During pendency of M.A.No.44/2011, D.G.Umapathy came to Bengaluru on leave. The appellant has withdrawn M.A.No.44/2011 on 2.12.2011 and thereafter D.G.Umapathy has filed M.A.53/2011 challenging the order of eviction passed by the 2nd respondent. During pendency of the above appeal, the 2nd respondent had issued a notice dt.14.1.2012 along with office order dt.14.1.2012. In the Office Order, the 2nd respondent has withdrawn the eviction notice dt.17.12.2011 on the ground that the eviction notice has been issued without complying the procedure contemplated under 14 M.A.No.3/2013 Sec.4 of the Act. In the notice D.G.Umapathy is directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 28.1.2012. Since D.G.Umapathy was working at Chattisghad, he appeared before 2nd respondent on 28.1.2012 and sought permission to appear before him and to place all material before him and also sought two weeks time to submit all documentary evidence. The 2nd respondent adjourned the enquiry to 4.12.2012. The document sought by the appellant under the Right to Information Act has been turned down by the Public Information Officer vide endorsement dt.28.1.2012. Under these circumstances, on 4.12.2012, the appellant appeared before the 2nd respondent and filed reply statement along with the relevant records. The appeal filed by D.G.Umapathy was also withdrawn on account of Memo dt.6.6.2012 filed by the respondent before this Court in M.A.53/2011. The 2nd respondent without considering the statement of objection filed by the appellant supported by documentary evidence and by 15 M.A.No.3/2013 ignoring CRPF Family Accommodation Rules 2008 and the Circulars issued thereof has erroneously and arbitrarily passed an order of eviction on 3.11.2012 under Sub Section 1(1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Uuauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 calling upon D.G.Umapathy to vacate the schedule premises within 15 days from the date of publication of the Order and in the event of refusal or failure to comply the said Order within the specified period, the appellant is liable to be evicted from the said premises if need be, by use of such force. . Thereafter the appellant has submitted her reply to the 2nd respondent on 28.12.2012. Despite the reply, steps have been taken to implement the Order of eviction dt.3.11.2012 by the 2nd respondent. Hence the appellant has filed this Appeal to set aside the impugned eviction Order passed by the 2nd respondent as the same is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the rules of natural justice. As can be seen from the eviction order dt.3.11.2012, it is crystal clear that the 16 M.A.No.3/2013 2nd respondent has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Uuauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971. The 2nd respondent has not considered the statement of objections filed by the appellant supported by documentary evidence. The 2nd defendant has not properly applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and passed an order of eviction erroneously and arbitrarily. In view of the illegal order passed by the 2nd respondent, the appellant and her son have been put to great hardship and inconvenience as the education of son of appellant is being disturbed on account of eviction order passed by the 2nd respondent. As per the CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, 2008,allotment and occupation of Family accommodation in CRPF and subsequent Circular dt.28.7.2009 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is crystal clear that maximum retention period of five years and posting to Jammu & Kashmir/N.E.Region/L.W.E area as per Rule 5(25) of 17 M.A.No.3/2013 CRPF Family Accommodation Rules 2008 and withdrawn and all such personnel may be allowed to retain the family quarters till their actual postings in these area. D.G.Umapathy is working in a place in which the area covers the circular dt.28.7.2009, as such the appellant and her son are legally entitled to continue in the quarters. Hence the impugned eviction Order passed by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable. Hence the appellant has prayed to set aside the eviction order dt.3.11.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent.
9. The appellant has produced the Notification issued by the respondent, which reads as follows:-
CRPF Family Accommodation Rule 2008:
Allotment and occupation of the family accommodation in the CRPF. Have taken serious note of the fact that large number of family quarters are lying vacant in CRPF campuses and directed to liberalize allotment Rules. Hence following amendments of CRPF 18 M.A.No.3/2013 Family Accommodation Rules 2008 and fresh guidelines for allotment of family quarters issued vide this office letter of even No.Dt.28.7.2009. The provision of 'Entitled category' and 'non entitled category' as property Rule 4(I) and (II) is hereby abolished and quarters may be allotted from the overall waiting list so that every needy personnel of he force can avail the facility of CRPF Family accommodation available at any GC/location. Provision contained in Rule 3(I)(II) for presiding over the "House Management Committee" by the head of static location is hereby withdrawn. Now DIGs of concerned GCs are empowered to preside over the meeting and frame suitable station accommodation Rules in place of range Disg. Other members for HMC should be one each from the offices/units located at that particular station so as to have representation from all the offices of the station. Keeping in view educational prospects of the wards of force personnel and other peculiar family problems being faced by them minimum period of allotment of CRPF quarter will be 03 years extendable 19 M.A.No.3/2013 upto 05 years by the GCOS, 07 years bisector 1SG and beyond it by DG in special circumstances. Maximum retention period of 05 years on posting of J & K/NE Region/LWE areas as per Rule 5(25) of CRPF Family accommodation Rules, 2008 is withdrawn and all such personnel may be allowed to retain the family quarter till their actual posting in these areas. In view of Charlie above, all GCOS/Estate Officers will initiate the proceedings under public premises(eviction of unauthorized occupants)Act, 1971 only after obtaining .............such application is rendered for decision........may be conducted for speedy allotment of quarters to needy personnel. All heads of office not to grant outliving permission to the personnel when family quarters of entitled Type are lying vacant at that particular station. Circulate above guidelines to all personnel of your units/offices and motivate them to apply for family quarters at the station of their choice sector polcents only.20 M.A.No.3/2013
10. On perusal of both case of petitioner as well as respondents, it is clear that there was some allegations against appellant as she had misbehaved with neighbors and senior officers' families and used filthy language to scold them and she disturbed the peace and tranquility in the locality, for which there was enquiry in the in-house itself by the officer appointed for such enquiry. But the case of the appellant is that her husband has been working in Chattisgarh, which is terrorized area; she is having a son by name Harshit, aged 14 years; he is studying in 10th standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The above quoted Circular also supports in favour of appellant that if any armed force personnel is posted to the North-East or LWE region, their family can stay in peaceful area, for the sake of education of children. It is the case of the appellant itself. Only because appellant is quarrelsome lady, she cannot be evicted from the quarters on the allegations made by neighbors. But appellant can be properly advised to maintain peace and tranquility in 21 M.A.No.3/2013 the locality. But appellant should be allowed to stay in the quarters till her husband D.G.Umapathy returns from Chattirgarh. The education of son of appellant should not be hampered by eviction of appellant from the premises. Accordingly this Court holds Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
11. Point No.2: In view of finding on Point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following Order:-
ORDER The Eviction Order dt.3.11.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside and respondents herein are directed to allow the appellant to continue in the quarters as per the existing norms and conditions or to make any alternative arrangement to the appellant till her husband is posted to peaceful area. (Typed to my online dictation by the Judgment writer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of March 2017) (A.VIJAYAN) LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge holding C/C of XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,Bangalore City.
22 M.A.No.3/2013 ORDER(vide separate Judgment) The Eviction Order dt.3.11.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside and respondents herein are directed to allow the appellant to continue in the quarters as per the existing norms and conditions or to make any alternative arrangement to the appellant till her husband is posted to peaceful area.
(A.VIJAYAN) LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge holding C/C of XXXVIII Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.