Delhi High Court
Ms. Rachna Dogra vs Directorate Of Estates, Ministry Of ... on 17 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: 109(2004)DLT286, 2004(72)DRJ617, (2004)137PLR18
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The petitioner was allotted type ''C'' quarter No. 13/463, Lodi Colony out of General Pool which had been placed at the disposal of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat by virtue of the letter dated 7.9.1994. Earlier, the petitioner had been allotted a Type ''B'' quarter on 17.2.1993. By the said letter dated 7.9.1994 the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, where the petitioner was employed, was required to place a Type ''C'' quarter in lieu of the aforesaid quarter No. 13/463, Lodi Colony out of its pool for the disposal of the General Pool. The petitioner was also required by the same letter dated 7.9.1994 to pay three times the normal license fee till she became entitled to Type ''C'' accommodation. The petitioner has deposited three times normal license fee for the aforesaid quarter pursuant to the letter dated 7.9.1994.
2. However, subsequently by a cancellation letter dated 22.8.1997 which is impugned herein, the petitioner's allotment was cancelled with effect from 7.9.1994 and she was, inter alia, required to hand over vacant possession of the said premises failing which action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was threatened to be taken. The petitioner did not vacate the premises and, therefore, proceedings under the said Act were initiated or eviction. However, at the time the eviction proceedings were initiated no notice under Section 7 of the said Act for recovery of arrears of rent/damages was issued to the petitioner. During the pendency of those proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition being CW 1927/2000 challenging the cancellation of allotment and the demand raised against the petitioner for damages dated 21.1.1998 which amount has subsequently been enhanced from time to time. In the eviction proceedings, an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner and, accordingly, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 2531/2000. During the pendency of that writ petition the petitioner had vacated the premises on 11.4.2002 and as such, that petition had become unfructuous and was dismissed as such on 15.12.2003.
3. In the present petition the petitioner does not have any grievance with regard to the eviction inasmuch as the same had been settled in the other writ petition being CW 2531/2000. The petitioner's grievance is with regard to the demand raised towards damages against the petitioner in view of the impugned cancellation letter dated 28.2.1997 and the demand dated 21.1.1998 at page 30 of the paper book.
4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such demand can be raised or recovered from the petitioner unless and until the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act are complied with. He further submitted that the provisions are mandatory and cannot be given a go by. Section 7 of the said Act reads as under:-
'' 7. 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 installments as may be specified in the order.
(2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages 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 installments as may be specified in the order.
(2A) While making an order under sub-section(1) or sub-section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed, not being parte exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978.
(3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer.'' It is to be noted that the petitioner is required to be proceeded under Section 7(1) if the petitioner was in authorised occupation or under Section 7(2) if he was in unauthorised occupation. In either event, Sub-Section (3) provides that no order can be passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) unless and until a notice in writing is issued to the person concerned calling upon him to show cause as to why an order under the aforesaid Section 7(1) and 7(2) ought not to be made. In the present case, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 7 have not been complied with. No notice has been issued to the petitioner for recovery of any arrears of rent or damages as the case may be. Accordingly, in this view of the matter the writ petitions liable to be allowed to the extent that the respondents cannot recover any amount from the petitioner unless and until the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act are complied with. If the respondents so feel they may proceed against the petitioner after issuing notice under the provisions of Section 7 and it will be open to the petitioner in that event to raise all grounds that are available to her under law including questioning her being considered as an unauthorised occupant.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
dusty.