Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Shri Atul Kumar Mittal vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 19 November, 2018

          IN THE COURT OF MS. ASHA MENON
     DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH DISTRICT)
                  SAKET: NEW DELHI

CIS­PPA­3­2018
CNR­DLST 01­003786­2018

Shri Atul Kumar Mittal,
Son of Sh.R.P. Mittal,
R/o 34, Vikramshila Apartments,
IIT Delhi Campus,
New Delhi­110016.                                             .....Appellant.
                       Versus

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
Through its Estate Officer,
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi­110016                                              .....Respondent.

Date of Institution: 31.05.2018
Judgment reserved on: 01.11.2018
Judgment pronounced on: 19.11.2018
                               JUDGMENT

This judgment will dispose of the appeal preferred by Professor Atul Kumar Mittal  under Section 9 of the Public Premises   (Eviction   of   Unauthorized   Occupants)   Act,   2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.P.Act') against the order dated 16.05.2016 of the respondent i.e. the Estate Officer of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.  It is submitted in the appeal that it is only when twin conditions prescribed u/s. 4 of the P.P Act are   satisfied   that   proceedings   of   eviction   can   be   initiated   and CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 1 of 14  these   two   requirements   are:   one,   that   the   Estate   Officer   had information   that   a   person   is   an   unauthorized   occupant   of   the public premises and secondly that it was necessary he should be evicted.  It is submitted in the appeal that the show cause notice dated   08.01.2018   was   vague   and   based   on   surmises   and conjuncture and did not conform to the mandatory requirement of law prescribed u/s. 4 of the P.P Act.  

It is further  stated that the show cause notice was issued with total non application of mind and was an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondent.  It is further submitted that when the Estate Officer had not formed an objective opinion that the appellant was an unauthorized occupant and was liable to be evicted, the show cause notice itself was without any jurisdiction and was also vitiated by malice and malafides.  It is further stated that   the   alleged   grounds   in   the   show   cause   notice   dated 08.01.2018   "are   completely   farce,   wrong,   incorrect   and misleading" (sic). 

It   is   further   stated   that   the   appellant   had   an unblemished,     exceptional  and  bright  service  of   over   17  years with   the   Indian   Institute   of   Technology,   Delhi   and   had contributed significantly through his expertise in environmental engineering.     It   is   stated   that   the   Institute   had   erroneously dismissed   the   appellant   from   service   in   a   pre­determined   and colourable exercise of power on some non­existent charges and with gross procedural irregularities.  It was submitted that in any CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 2 of 14  case   the   appellant   had   challenged   the   penalty   of   compulsory retirement   being   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.9777/2017,   which   was pending before the Hon'ble High Court.

It is further submitted that hearing on the show cause notice   dated   08.01.2018   was   against   the   principles   of   natural justice, as the appellant was not given opportunity to obtain all the documents and further the submissions made by him were not considered   that   he   was   an   authorized   occupant   of   the   allotted premises,   as   he   was   still   on   the   academic   staff   of   the   Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi as he was still giving classes to Ph.D students.  Further the personal hearing fixed on 01.05.2018 at 5.00 pm was not duly informed to the appellant, as he received the intimation at 5.33 pm after the hearing and thus the impugned order   was   passed   without   adherence   to   principles   of   natural justice.     On   these   grounds,   it   was   submitted   that   the   entire proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer was vitiated and was liable to be set aside in its entirety and thus including impugned order directing eviction.  

In the reply filed by the respondent Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, it has been submitted that the appellant was   an   unauthorized   occupant   of   House   No.   34,   Vikramshila Apartments,   IIT   Campus,   Delhi,   as   he   had   been   compulsorily retired pursuant to disciplinary proceedings and thus he could no longer retain the accommodation.   It is submitted that internal appeals filed by the appellant had been dismissed including by CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 3 of 14  the Hon'ble Visitor and thus the department had rightly moved the Estate Officer for obtaining vacant possession of the quarter in question.

It is further submitted that in the Writ Petition (C) No.   9777/2017   an   application   seeking   interim   direction   for retention of possession was not pressed before the Hon'ble High Court and, therefore, the proceedings were rightly initiated.   It was further submitted that the Estate officer had properly given the show cause notice stating out the reasons why eviction was being   sought.     Further   the   replies   submitted   were   also   duly considered   by   the   Estate   Officer   and   every   request   of   the appellant for another day of hearing and personal appearance was also granted.   It was submitted that all the replies submitted by the appellant were also duly considered and the impugned order was rightly passed.   Thus, it was submitted that the appeal was misconceived and was liable to be dismissed.

I   have   heard   the   submissions   of   Shri   Divyanshu Sahay Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri T.Singhdev with Ms. Michelle B.Dass, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.  I have also perused the record.

Ld.   Counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that   the show   cause   notice   was   once   again   an   invalid   notice   and, therefore, as on the previous occasions, the present proceedings were also liable to set aside.  It was argued vehemently that the show cause notice ought to have recorded as to the nature of the CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 4 of 14  information received regarding the unauthorized occupancy and the   acceptance   of   the   Estate   Officer   of   such   information   and further why the Estate Officer considered it necessary to evict the appellant from the premises.

Further,   it   was   submitted   that   the   impugned   order was merely a reiteration of the show cause notice and no finding had been recorded by the Estate Officer on these twin aspects i.e. whether the appellant was an unauthorized occupant and whether it was necessary in any case to evict him from the premises in question.  The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the intimation for hearing fixed on 01.05.2018 at 5.00 PM was served at 5.30 PM, which was clear from the tracking report and, therefore,   it   was   impossible   for   him   to   have   appeared   for   the hearing.  It was submitted that the appellant had not received the alleged email.

It   was   also   submitted   that   since   the   compulsory retirement from service was pending challenge before the Hon'ble High Court, such a ground was not available to the Estate Officer to evict the appellant from the premises.  Moreover, the appellant was otherwise eligible, as he was part of the academic staff in as much   as   he   was   a   supervisor   to   Ph.D   students.     Thus,   as   the appellant   was   discharging   official   duties   he   was   neither   an unauthorized   occupant   nor   was   there   any   ground   to   evict   him from the premises.   It was submitted that further under Rule 22 the   Director   could   relax   the   rules   and   the   present   case   an CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 5 of 14  appropriate case in which the Director's discretion ought to have been used.

Ld.   Counsel   submitted   that   there   was   an   interim order protecting the appellant from eviction since 06.11.2017 and, therefore, the stay application filed in the Writ Petition was not pressed before the Hon'ble High Court.  Thus, on these grounds it was submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. 

The   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   respondent   on   the   other hand   submitted   that   since   there   was   an   order   of   compulsory retirement which had yet not been set aside, the appellant had ceased to be on the rolls of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and upon such complete severance he was not entitled to any of the perks of service.  He was given permission to remain in   the   accommodation   as   per   the   rules   for   a   retired   official. Beyond that, there was no occasion to accommodate the appellant any   further.    It   was   submitted   that  on   17.10.2016  the   pension fixation order was passed.  The statutory appeal was filed by the appellant, which was rejected on 12.10.2017.   Thereafter, in the Writ   Petition   no   protection   from   eviction   was   sought   as   the application was not pressed.

The Ld. Counsel  submitted  that the  interim  orders protecting possession was in respect of a previous appeal u/s. 9 in PPA­08/2018 which  was  passed  by this  Court  and the  present matter was a fresh proceeding as permitted by this Court while disposing of the earlier appeal.  Thus, what had to be determined CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 6 of 14  was whether the proceedings under the P.P Act has been validly carried out by the Estate Officer culminating in the eviction order. In   this   connection,   the   Ld.   Counsel   has   pointed   out   that   the appellant had filed several detailed replies also pleading that his son was studying and, therefore, time be extended for vacation of the   premises   which   were   all   duly   considered   by   the   Estate Officer.

Ld. Counsel also pointed out to various documents to show that every request of the appellant had been accommodated and further the notice of hearing for 01.05.2018 had been also given   by   email.     Therefore,   the   appellant   had   purposely   not appeared and thereafter, the impugned order was rightly passed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of my Ld. Predecessor in   two   cases  'Bharat   Shah   vs   The   Estate   Officer   &   Deputy Director, PPA No.14/10 decided on 15.07.2011 and 'Om Prakash Prasad vs The Director, AIIMS & Ors', PPA no.02/14 decided on 01.10.2014 to submit that after dismissal/compulsory retirement, the appellant had no right to continue in the premises.

I have considered the submissions of both counsel and the cited judgments and also considered the Estate Officer's record.   The record would show that on the first occasion the notice u/s. 4 of the P.P Act was arbitrarily issued resulting in the proceedings being set aside by this Court.  This time notice u/s. 4 of the Act is no doubt explicit and clear.  The Estate Officer has also granted opportunity to the appellant to submit replies.

The record filed by the appellant himself discloses that he had filed a reply on 17.01.2018 in respect of the notice dated   08.01.2018.     In   his   reply   the   appellant   sought   time   to produce   evidence   in   support   of   his   case   that   he   was   not   an unauthorized occupant.   He had also sought certain documents which were declined to him vide letter dated 21.08.2018 and the hearing was fixed for 06.02.2018.

On   06.02.2018   he   was   informed   that   the   Estate Officer was out of station therefore, fresh notice of hearing was given to the appellant  for 08.02.2018 at 3.00 PM for personal hearing.   On   08.02.2018   the   appellant   submitted   a   letter submitting therein that he was an authorized occupant of House No.34, Vikramshila Apartments, IIT Campus, Delhi and further submitting that the show cause notice being based on earlier show cause notice which had been set aside in appeal u/s. 9 of the P.P Act   by   this   Court   was   improper   and   the   appellant   was   also officially carrying out academic work for the Institute under the directions of the competent authority and that the documents had not been properly supplied to him in the absence of which he was unable to file a detailed reply and he sought eight weeks time to file   a   detailed   reply   in   the   interest   of   justice   and   in   some recognition   of   the   devoted   service   of   about   19   years   that   he rendered to the institute.

In response to this vide letter dated 19.02.2019, the Estate Officer granted time till 05.03.2018 to submit reply.   On CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 8 of 14  05.03.2018 the appellant submitted a reply seeking presence of a legal practitioner/counsel and a dealing assistant (DA).   He also sought   time   to   present   ruling   and   judgments   and   that   all   the grounds   mentioned   in   the   notice   originated   from   a   subjudice matter, which was under the consideration of Hon'ble High Court at the stage of final arguments.   It was further submitted in the reply that the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 08.01.2018 in Writ Petition (C)No. 9777/17 had made very strong observation regarding the violation of mandatory rules.  The appellant further sought   opportunity   for   personal   hearing   to   submit   many   other grounds which he could argue.

It   was   submitted   that   in   the   light   of   the   pending proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court it was surprising that the show case notice of eviction was served on the appellant two days   after   the   hearing   before   the   Hon'ble   High   Court.     He reiterated that the previous eviction order dated 03.05.2017 had been set aside and further the appellant was officially carrying out academic   work   under   direction   of   the   competent   authority   in accordance   with   the   rules   and   policy   of   the   institute   and, therefore, it was incorrect to say that he had no connection.  The appellant   also   claimed   to   be   supervising   Ph.D   students   and publishing   research   papers   in   International   Journals   bringing credit to the institute.  It was again reiterated that the documents had been wrongly refused to him as they were material for the correct adjudication of the case.

Further he had given detailed response to the four grounds  in the  show  cause  notice  by  submitting that  being an employee of the Institute since 1999 he has always resided in the premises of the Institute and that the decision of the Board of Governors   dated   29.06.2016   was   not   final   and   the   eviction proceedings were illegal and in violation of law when the Court was   not   considering   order   dated   29.06.2016   (of   compulsory retirement final).  It was further submitted that since the order of stay was enforced on 06.11.2017, the question of eviction was not allowed to be raised by the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and further in the light of the orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 20.12.2017 and 08.01.2018 the proceedings should be disposed of in the light of the law of natural justice (sic).

Thus,   he   prayed   for   a   date   and   time   for   final arguments and personal hearing.   In respect of this request vide letter dated 12.03.2018, the Estate Officer directed the appellant to present his case either by legal counsel or defence assistance on 15.03.2018.  On 14.03.2018 the appellant again wrote a letter to the Estate Officer submitting that the case was coming before the   Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court   on   15.03.2018   and   therefore,   a request was made for another date of hearing for final arguments and personal hearing.

The   date   was   then   fixed   on   06.04.2018   when   the appellant   appeared   in   person   and   sought   another   date   as   his CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 10 of 14  counsel   was   pre­occupied.   The   date   was   then   fixed   for 01.05.2018 at 17:00 hours.  According to the appellant he never received the email and the letter had been received after the time fixed for hearing.

It is clear therefore, more than ample opportunities were   availed   of   by   the   appellant   to   place   detailed   written responses   to   the   show   cause   notice   dated   08.01.2018.     With regard to personal hearings, dates were given to the appellant on his requests.

The plea taken that the email dated 26.04.2018 was not received appears to be a spacious plea in order to get over the fact that the appellant had due notice of the dates of hearing.  The appellant   claims   to   be   working   with   the   Indian   Institute   of Technology, Delhi for 19 years and it appears to be lacking in credibility that  crucial  communication would not have reached the appellant through email.  The Estate Officer in the impugned orders   have   referred   to   all   these   several   dates   granted   to   the appellant   to   appear   before   the   Estate   Officer   and   submit   oral arguments in person or through legal counsel.  It is to be noticed that vide letter dated 05.03.2018 the appellant has only sought time   for   final   arguments   and   personal   hearing   as   his   detailed reply had been submitted on 05.03.2018 in addition to the earlier letters mentioning the similar grounds.   Such requests made for personal hearings were also acceded to.   Thus, there appears no violation of the principles of natural justice.  Even if the appellant CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 11 of 14  could not appear in person on 01.05.2018, since all his pleas were incorporated in his multiple replies, which were duly considered, no prejudice has been caused to him.

No doubt, the appellant has been compulsory retired from   services.   No   doubt   too,   a   writ   petition   is   pending, challenging the compulsory retirement. The allotment of a quarter is   a   perk   attached   to   the   employment.   However,   allotment   of accommodation is not a matter of right and as, such allotment is premised on rules and availability of quarters and other applicants to the quarters.  The appellant was himself aware of this position in as much as he had filed an application for interim protection of his possession of the quarter in the said Writ Petition (C) No. 9777/17 but it was not pressed before the Hon'ble High Court.

It   does   not   appeal   to   reason   that   merely   because previously an appeal u/s. 9 of P.P Act was pending before this Court,   therefore,   the   protection   from   eviction   was   not   sought from the Hon'ble High Court.   The scope of the writ petition is vastly different from the scope of an appeal u/s. 9 of P.P. Act. Obviously,   therefore,   greater   protection   was   available   to   the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court but that relief was not obtained from the Hon'ble High Court.  It is also note worthy that the said appeal  u/s. 9 of  P.P Act, being PPA No.08/2017 was disposed   of   vide   judgment   dated   25.11.2017.   The   present proceedings were taken against the appellant in January, 2018 yet no effort was made to move the Hon'ble High Court for interim CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 12 of 14  relief   namely,   protection   of   possession   even   though   the   Writ Petition No.9777/17 was being heard.  Thus, this explanation can not be accepted.   In these circumstances, the Estate Officer was justified in proceeding with the eviction proceedings under the P.P Act.  

The Ld. Counsel for the appellant tried to argue that as "academic staff" the appellant had a right to continue in the premises.   However, the definition of "academic staff" includes Professor and other such "academic post" which according to Ld. Counsel for the appellant covered him as he was a "supervisor" of Ph.D students.  However, after the compulsory retirement of the appellant, he was certainly not on the rolls of the Indian Institute of   Technology,   Delhi   nor   can   he   be   covered   under   other "academic post" as the director had not assigned any such post to the appellant.   Furthermore, the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi has been categoric that the appellant is not supervising any Ph.D students at present as such students assigned to him had already submitted their  thesis.   This Court need not enter into further fact finding enquiry in this regard.  Thus, even under the description of "supervisor" the appellant does not fall under the eligible criteria.

Under the House Allotment Rules, 'employees' mean "whole   time   employee"   who   are   eligible   for   residence   at   the campus.  Thus even if the plea of the appellant was accepted for arguments'   sake,   that   he   was   giving   guidance   to   some   Ph.D CIS­PPA­3­2018 Page 13 of 14  students, he cannot be described as a full time employee as he has been compulsory retired. Thus, the Estate Officer was justified in concluding that the appellant was not entitled to remain in the allotted   quarters,   his   employment   with   Indian   Institute   of Technology, Delhi having come to an end and thus he was an unauthorized occupant.

The arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the show cause notice must record a finding by the Estate Officer as to why he was accepting a certain information that the occupant   was   unauthorized   and   why   he   was   considering   it necessary to evict him is completely misplaced. The order of the Estate Officer has given cogent reasons why the appellant was considered an unauthorized occupant in the premises and why he had to be evicted.

In the circumstances, there is no merit in the present appeal and the appeal is dismissed.  The appellant is granted time till 31.01.2019 to vacate the premises bearing no.34, Vikramshila Apartments, IIT Campus, Delhi failing which the Estate Officer ASHA would be entitled to use as much force as is necessary to obtain MENON the vacant possession of the premises.

MENON The file be consigned to the Record Room.

Date: 2018.11.19
15:29:12 +0530

                   Announced in open Court 
                   today i.e. 19.11.2018                            (ASHA MENON)    
                                                     District & Sessions Judge (South)
                                                                  Saket/New Delhi.

                   CIS­PPA­3­2018                                                  Page 14 of 14