Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Jasmant Raj Shastri vs Union Of India on 24 January, 2024
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00011 of 2019 Jasmant Raj Shastri Vs U.O.I.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 11 of 2019
Order Reserved on: 12.01.2024
Order Pronounced on: 24.01.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
1. Jasmant Raj Shastri, aged about 62 years, son of Late Jograj, resident
of Village and Post-Maidhirganj, Police Station-Faraur, District-
Shahjahanpur.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Principal Controller Defence Accounts
(Central Command) Cariappa Road, Cantt, Lucknow.
2. Senior Accounts Officer (Administrative-2), Office of Principal
Controller Defence Accounts (Central Command) Cariappa Road,
Cantt, Lucknow.
3. Smt. Sona Raj Shastri, wife of Jasmant Raj Shastri.
4. Dushyant Raj Shastri son of Jasmant Raj Shastri.
5. Vijay Raj Shastri son of Jasmant Raj Shastri.
6. Jayant Raj Shastri son of Jasmant Raj Shastri.
All 3 to 6 are resident of C-3/6, Vivek Vihar Colony, Cantt. Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER
By- Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Page 1 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00011 of 2019 Jasmant Raj Shastri Vs U.O.I. This is a case of recovery on account of rent and damages for overstaying in government accommodation in which the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
(i) To set aside the part of the impugned order 09.04.2018 passed by the opposite party No. 2 so far it relates that opposite party No. 2 going to recover the damage rent of the house in question as 200 times from the petitioner, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Original Application.
(ii) To direct the opposite party No. 1 and 2 to get vacate the house i.e. C-3/6, Vivek Vihar Colony, Cantt. Lucknow 3 to 6 declaring them unauthorized occupants.
(iii) To pass such other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of Original Application in favour of the Petitioner.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was allotted government accommodation and was living there with his wife and three sons. He retired from service on 31.07.2016. Due to a family dispute, even though the applicant left the official accommodation, his family continued to live there. Faced with the impugned memorandum dated 09.04.2018 asking him to ensure handing over the possession of the house failing which damages at the rate of 200 times the license fee would be charged, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. It is stated by the applicant that a dispute arose between the applicant and his wife (private respondent no. 3) and a case under the Domestic Violence Act was registered against the applicant. In the meantime, a notice dated 22.06.2017 was issued by the official respondents to the applicant to vacate the official accommodation. The applicant informed the respondents vide letter dated 29.06.2017 that he was not residing in the house and his wife and three sons were illegally living there. Thereafter, the official respondents sent notice dated 12.07.2017 to the applicant's wife to vacate the quarter. On 21.09.2017, a notice of eviction was sent to the applicant by the official respondents for unauthorized occupation and recovery of license Page 2 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00011 of 2019 Jasmant Raj Shastri Vs U.O.I. fee at increasing rates from his pension. Finally, the impugned memorandum dated 09.04.2018 was issued for levying of damage rent. It is the contention of the applicant that the official respondents have failed to take action for eviction of his wife and children after issuing the notice dated 12.07.2017 to them. It is further stated that finally the house was got vacated on 10.10.2023 and the applicant informed vide letter dated 17.11.2023. It is the contention of the applicant that the official respondents should recover the dues from the unauthorized occupants.
4. The respondents state that after the applicant's retirement on 31.07.2016, he was informed vide letter dated 20.09.2016 to vacate the government house. The applicant, vide letter dated 13.10.2016, requested for retention of the house till January, 2017 on account of education of his son. The applicant was allowed to retain the house till 01.02.2017. When the house was not vacated, a letter dated 22.06.2017 was issued informing that damage rent will be charged if the house is not vacated. The applicant replied on 29.06.2017 that he was not living in the house and his wife and children living there were not vacating it despite his direction and he had filed suit no. 628/2017 in the Family Court for judicial separation from his wife. He also requested the official respondents to get the house vacated. Thereafter, the official respondents issued letter dated 12.07.2017 to the applicant's wife to vacate the house. As the house was not vacated, a notice dated 21.09.2017 under section 4 (i) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Persons) Act, 1971 was issued to the applicant and his wife and children. Despite repeated notices neither the house was vacated nor the dues towards payment of rent, electricity, water etc, were deposited. Therefore, letter dated 25.07.2018 for rent and damages amounting to Rs. 7,66,020/- was issued to the applicant. As per the official respondents, as the house is allotted to the applicant, handing it over is his liability and he is not entitled to any relief. The official respondents do not have any direct relationship with the applicant's wife and children and the applicant cannot Page 3 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00011 of 2019 Jasmant Raj Shastri Vs U.O.I. absolve himself of his liability by arraying them as private respondents. The official respondents issued order dated 15.01.2021 calling upon the private respondents to vacate the house whereupon the private respondents filed Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2021 before Hon'ble District Judge at Lucknow in which the applicant has been arrayed as private respondent. It is contended that the applicant and the private respondents are hand in glove and are abusing the process of law.
5. Heard both the parties.
6.1 An appreciation of relevant provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PPA, hereinafter) is in order in this case. The power to require payment for rent and damages flows from sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 7 of PPA reproduced below:
"Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises - (1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
(2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorized occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises, and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
..."
(emphasis supplied) Thus the power to assess damages and require payment of arrears of rent and damages vests with the estate officer.
6.2 If a person is aggrieved from the order of the estate officer, the appeal can be made to the authority specified in sub-section (1) of section 9 of PPA extracted below:
"9. Appeals. - (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or section 5B or section 5C or section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the district judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years in standing as the district judge may designate in this behalf.Page 4 of 5
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00011 of 2019 Jasmant Raj Shastri Vs U.O.I. (emphasis supplied) 6.3 There is also a bar on jurisdiction under section 15, relevant parts of which are quoted below:
"15. Bar of jurisdiction. - (1) No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of - .....
(d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2), or interest payable under sub-
section (2A), of that section, or .....
(emphasis supplied) 6.4 It is noted from the statement made by the respondents that the private respondents have filed Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2021 before Hon'ble District Judge at Lucknow in which the applicant has been arrayed as private respondent.
6.5 It is further noted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal without exhausting the remedy of appeal available under section 9 of PPA. 7.1 In view of the fact and circumstances above, this OA is dismissed. The applicant shall be at liberty to take recourse to appeal against the order passed by the estate officer under section 9 of PPA. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A) Warij Page 5 of 5