Bom OA 70/2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.70 OF 2009
Dated this Friday, the 22nd day of February, 2013.
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER(A).
HON'BLE SMT. CHAMELI MAJUMDAR, MEMBER(J)
Ram Arjun Palav
R/at 25/742, C.G.S. Colony,
S.M. Plot, Sector 7,
Antop Hill, Mumbai 400 037. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri V.A. Nagrani)
1. Director General of Shipping,
Zahaj Bhavan, W.H. Marg,
Mumbai 400 001.
2. The Asst. Estate Manager,
Government of India,
101, M.K. Road,
Old C.G.O. Bldg., Annexe,
3rd Floor, Mumbai 400 020. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. H.P. Shah alongwith
Shri P. Khosla for Respondent No.1 &
Shri N.K. Rajpurohit for Respondent No.2)
O R D E R
Per: Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member(A)
This Original Application is filed on 09.02.2009 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 on the point of recovery at market rate for unauthorized occupation of government accommodation.
2. The case has a very short compass. Applicant who is a Upper Division Clerk was occupying the quarters alloted by Respondent-Department within their residential colony. It appears that with effect from 06.11.1996 he came to occupy the accommodation No.23/591, C.G.S. Colony, S.M. Plot, Sector 7, Antophill, Mumbai, Type II. During one of the sudden inspections carried out by the officials of the Respondent-Department, it came out that he had sublet the said quarters to other people. Therefore, the allotment was cancelled vide cancellation No.50/Sub/163/98EMB dated 26.09.1998. His representation against the cancellation order was rejected. The Estate Officer issued show cause notice under Section 4 of the P.P. Act and after giving hearing, passed an eviction order dated 27.09.2000 asking the applicant to surrender the quarters within 15 days.
3. The appeal against this order before the Civil Court of Bombay bearing Appeal No.113/2000 resulted in a Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay, who remanded the matter to Estate Officer for fresh hearing. After de-novo hearing, the Estate Officer once again issued eviction order dated 27.09.2005 (Exhibit A-5). An appeal No.84 of 2005 against this order was dismissed in Bombay City Civil Court on 19.10.2007 (Exhibit A-6). The City Civil Court had recorded following questions and findings:-
1. Whether the disputed premises In affirmative
are Public Premises?
2. Whether the appellant was and In affirmative is in unauthorized occupation
thereof after termination of
license on 2.11.1998?”
4. A Writ Petition against the Appellate order was also dismissed on 08.02.2008.
5. Under these circumstances, it is the claim of applicant that the Respondents-Department issued notice dated 29.05.2008 for recovery of Rs.8,38,368/ as outstanding arrears for unauthorized occupation of the said quarter and another letter dated 12.11.2008 fixing monthly recovery installment of Rs.8,000/ per month.
6. The applicant in paragraph 8(a) of the Original Application has prayed for quashing these two orders No.PB-26-Admn/(5)/89-III dated 12.11.2008 (Ex. A-1) and order No.7/AB/I/SS/08 IMM dated 29.5.2008 which is not produced in the Original Application or till time of hearing. A stay order had been granted on 11.02.2009 which is extended from time to time till date of final hearing.
7. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith.
8. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents it has not been disputed by the applicant that he misused the allotment of Flat No.23/591, C.G.S. Colony, AntopHill, by subletting it. He was, therefore, rightfully evicted and also it is within the right of the respondents to recover the rent at market rate. All the litigations that the applicant has engaged are at his own instance and he cannot claim any respite from paying market rent for that period. The purpose of allotment of government accommodation to government employees is to facilitate their smooth performance at the office. It is however, a fact that there is always a paucity of government accommodation and many genuine government employees have to await for a long time before they can get a residential accommodation. Under these situations any employee misusing the allotment given to him must be treated with a firm hand. The various claims of the present applicant have already been raised and decided by various fora such as Estate Office, City Civil Court and High Court of Bombay and it has come out through all these cases that he has no valid claim. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, prays that the Original Application may be dismissed.
9. In view of all the aspects as discussed above, we find no merit in the Original Application which is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Smt. Chameli Majumdar) (Smt. Leena Mehendale)