Delhi District Court
Sh. Mohan Lal S/O Sh. Sujan Lal vs Union Of India Through on 7 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDITONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C, SOUTH DISTRICT :
SAKET NEW DELHI
PPA No. 22/2009
ID No.: 02403R0979992008
1. Sh. Mohan Lal s/o Sh. Sujan Lal
2. Smt. Neeru Kaushal w/o Sh. Mohan Lal,
Both R/o Q. No.1000, Sector7
R.K. Puram, New Delhi ... Appellants
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary Ministry of Urban
Development, Directorate of Estates,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Estate Officer
Directorate of Estates Ministry of Urban
Development, Directorate of Estates,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCT Delhi
(Through Commissioner of Police)
PHQ ITO, New Delhi 110019. ... Respondents
Instituted on: 03.07.2008
Judgment reserved on: 07.07.2011
Judgment pronounced on :07.07.2011
J U D G M E N T
PPA No. 22/09 Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India. 1 of 5
1. This appeal under Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Public Premises Act") is directed against the eviction order passed on 16.06.2008 and order dated 15.04.2008 seeking recovery of damages to the dune of Rs. 4,89,504/, both issued by the respondent Estate Officer.
2. The appellant no.1 is serving in Delhi Police in the rank of Inspector (Admn). Appellant no.2 is his wife who is also serving in Delhi Police as Assistant Wireless Operator in communication unit. It appears appellant no.1 had earlier gone on deputation to Intelligence Bureau in the Ministry of Home Affairs and served there for some time in the rank of Assistant Central Intelligence OfficerII, the public premises described as Quarter no.1000 Sector VII, R. K. Puram, New Delhi was allotted to him during his tenure of service in Intelligence Bureau. He repatriated to Delhi Police on 30.05.2005. He continued to occupy the public premises in question even thereafter.
3. It appears respondent Directorate of Estates vide letter dated 13.03.2008 cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid premises with effect from 30.07.2000. It further appears that since appellant continued to occupy the said premises, eviction proceedings were PPA No. 22/09 Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India. 2 of 5 taken out before the Estate Officer in which regard notice under Section 4(2) of the Public Premise Act was issued on 24.03.2008 by the Estate Officer calling upon the appellant no.1 to appear to show cause to the contrary.
4. On 08.04.2008, on the basis of further request of the Directorate of Estates, another matter came up before the Estate Officer whereby it was proposed that the damages to the tune of Rs. 4,89,504/ be recovered from the appellant no.1 for the period for which he had been allegedly an unauthorised occupant of the public premises. In this regard, another notice was issued on 15.04.2008 whereby appellant no.1 was called upon by the Estate Officer under Section 7(2) of the Public Premises Act to appear before him on 01.05.2008 to show cause against the proposed action.
5. The proceedings arising out of the show cause notice for eviction resulted in final order of the Estate Officer passed on 16.06.2008, whereby it was ordered under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Act that appellant no.1 and all other persons who may be in occupation of the said premises be evicted.
6. During arguments, it was conceded on both sides that the matter relating to damages is pending before the Estate Officer.
7. The appellant has challenged in this appeal the eviction order dated PPA No. 22/09 Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India. 3 of 5 16.06.2008 of eviction and the show cause notice dated 15.04.2008 regarding the proceedings pertaining to recovery of damages.
8. The appeal has been resisted by the respondents no.1 and 2 through a reply/written statement dated 01.11.2009. Though a formal reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, the matter essentially pertains to appellants on one hand and respondents no.1 and 2 on the other.
9. I have heard Sh. V.V. R. Rao, advocate for the appellants and Sh. J. N. Vashist, advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. I have gone through the record.
10.During the course of arguments, it was brought out that upon allotment of another premises, the appellants have already vacated the public premises in question on 30.12.2008. With this subsequent development, the appeal so far as it challenges the eviction order has become infructous and, therefore, is accordingly disposed of.
11.As regards challenge to the show cause notice dated 15.04.2008, since it has been fairly conceded by both sides that the matter is still pending before the Estate Officer as no further/final order imposing the said damages has been passed. It is not proper to entertain appeal only against the show cause notice. The proper course for the appellant would be, if he is so advised, to resist the show cause PPA No. 22/09 Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India. 4 of 5 notice and the proceedings arising there from before the Estate Officer, and if any adverse order is passed resulting in liability being finally imposed, he would be within his rights to approach this court again under the appellate jurisdiction.
12.In above facts and circumstances the appeal so far as proceedings pertaining to recovery of damages is found to be premature and is disposed of accordingly, though reserving the right of the appellant as mentioned above.
13.The Estate Officer's record be returned forthwith with copy of this judgment.
14. File of the appeal be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court today
on this 07th day of July,2011 (R.K. GAUBA)
District Judge &
Addl. Sessions Judge,
I/C South District,
Saket, New Delhi
PPA No. 22/09 Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India. 5 of 5