Eviction – Eviction of unauthorised occupants – RespondentState Housing Board allotted flats to the appellant-University for the residence of the University’s employees – In terms of allotment agreement, University was required to pay 10% of the total consideration fixed and balance in 180 installments – University got possession of the flats and they allotted few flats to its employees – However, University defaulted in payment of installments and consequent to which Board raised demand of defaulted sum – University failed to make the payment and consequently, the Board cancelled the allotment, but decided to allot the flats to some of the occupants (retired employees) on request made by the University – Thereafter, University realised that there was some foul play in sending of letter of request for allotment to the Board and therefore, cancelled the request letter, and warned the concerned employees to not act upon such request and nor should make any payment to the Board – Despite this, employees (including retired employeesrespondent nos. 4 and 5) made payments for the flats allotted to them and University also made some payments towards the sale consideration – Whether retired employees-respondent no.4 and 5 were in unauthorised occupation of the flats and were liable to pay penal rent to the University for their wrongful use and occupation of flats – Held: The occupants (respondent nos. 4 and 5) had right to remain in lawful occupation of the flats only so long as they were in the employment of the University, and on payment of the house rent fixed by the University as per their policy – The day their services came to an end, their possession in flats became unlawful and unauthorised, and they were under contractual and legal obligation to handover the possession of flats to their employer – Insofar as money deposited by the respondent nos.4 and 5 to the Board contrary to the directions issued by the University is concerned, the payment made by the respondent nos.4 and 5 did not create any independent right in their favour and nor such payment even if made by the employees impaired the rights of the University in any manner in relation to the allotment of flats qua Board – Furthermore, the cancellation order of the Board was revoked when it accepted the lump sum payments of monthly installments from the University and resultantly, the original allotment stood restored in favour of the University – Thus, respondent nos. 4 and 5 liable to be evicted from the flats and also liable to pay penal rent to the University for their use and occupation till the date of their eviction – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The writ petitioners’ (respondent nos. 4 and 5) right to remain in lawful occupation of the flats could subsist only so long as they were in the employment of the University, and that too on payment of house rent fixed by the University as per their policy. In other words, the writ petitioners could exercise their right of occupation qua the University only during their service tenure subject to fulfillment of the requisite terms and conditions and their right of occupation was terminable on their service tenure coming to an end. [Para 19][1090-C]
2. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners (respondent nos. 4 and 5) had retired long back from their services and yet they retained unlawful possession of the flats in question. The Single Judge of the High Court has rightly held that writ petitioners (respondent nos. 4 and 5) were in unauthorized occupation of the flats from the date they ceased to be in the employment of the University and hence were liable to be evicted from the flats and were also liable to pay penal rent to the University for their use and occupation till the date of their eviction. [Paras 21 and 22][1090-F-G]
3. The contention of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 that since they had deposited some money with the Board for allotment of the flats in their personal capacity pursuant to the decision of the University taken by them in that behalf, a right had accrued in their favour to remain in occupation of the flats even after they had ceased to be in the employment of the University in their individual rights is rejected for more than one reason. First, It is not in dispute that the University had withdrawn its decision to allot the flats to its employees immediately and also warned them not to enter into any transaction with the Board directly in relation to the flats, else they will have to face the disciplinary action. This was sufficient indication to the employees not to deal with the Board in any manner in their individual capacity: Second, it is also not in dispute that the University even after cancellation of the initial allotment order went on paying monthly installments in lump sum to the Board and the Board in turn also went on accepting the money as and when paid by the University. The acceptance of payment from the University subsequent to cancellation by the Board amounted to revocation of the cancellation order and resulted in restoration of the initial allotment made in favour of the University: Third, the issue in the writ petitions was between the writ petitioners (employees) and the University because the writ petitioners had come into possession of the flats through the University. They had, therefore, no independent cause of action in relation to the issue of flats qua the Board; Fourth, the writ petitioners did not file any suit for specific performance of contract against the Board for enforcement of their alleged independent contractual right in relation to the flats. Their alleged disputes qua the Board in relation to flats, therefore, could not have been gone into in these proceedings: Fifth, in any event, mere payment of Rs.10,000/- to the Board by the writ petitioners contrary to the directions issued by the University did not create any independent right in their favour and nor such payment even if made by the employees impaired the rights of the University in any manner in relation to the allotment of flats qua Board and lastly, the cancellation having been revoked on account of acceptance of payment from the University by the Board, the original allotment dated 05.07.1976 stood restored in favour of the University. [Paras 23 and 25] [1090-G-H; 1091-A, B-G]
4. The University would be at liberty to proceed against the writ petitioners seeking their eviction from the flats in question by filing appropriate proceedings before the Competent Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and also claim in the said proceedings arrears of penal rent payable by the writ petitioners from the date their possession became unauthorized in the flats till their delivery. Likewise, the writ petitioners and other employees (occupants) would also be at liberty to take refund from the Board of their paid amount, which they claimed to have deposited with the Board for allotment of the flats along with interest at a reasonable rate. [Paras 28 and 30][1092-B, D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.