Allowed

Roshan Lal Tikoo v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Apr 2019W.P.(C)/3711/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging eviction notice for occupying government quarter beyond authorized retention period. Court rejected claim of continued occupancy due to safety in native village, noting petitioner served for decades and could have arranged alternative accommodation, thus dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed subject to exceptions; eviction notice and pending application confirmed/disposed.

Roshan Lal Tikoo Vs Commissioner of Police & Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3711/2019

¶4

ROSHAN LAL TIKOO ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Nishit Kush and Ms Mercy Hussin, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Ajay Digpaul, CGSF with Mr Nikhil Bhardwaj and Mr Prashant Singh, Advocates for R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 10.04.2019

¶12

CM No. 17055/2019

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

W.P.(C) 3711/2019& CM No.17054/2019

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an eviction notice 27.03.2019 issued by respondent no.1 (Commissioner of Police) for recovery of market rate of ₹8,250/- for the government quarter occupied by the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2009 till the vacation of the government quarter.

¶16

The petitioner was employed with the Indian Army and after retiring from the Indian Army, he had joined Delhi Police on 31.05.1995, as a Constable. Subsequently, on 04.09.1996, the petitioner was allotted government accommodation – quarter no.B-14/109, Type-I, PPL Delhi.

¶17

The petitioner superannuated from the services of Delhi Police on 30.04.2016. He was allowed to retain the government accommodation for a further period of one year from the expiry of his authorized retention period on payment of licence fee as per the prevalent policy. The said period also came to an end on 31.12.2017. Nonetheless, the petitioner has been occupying the said premises unauthorizedly till date.

¶18

On 14.12.2018, respondent no.1 issued a direction directing the petitioner to immediately vacate the government quarter and also pay the market rent of ₹8250/-per month from 01.01.2018 till date of vacation of the quarter. The petitioner did not comply with the said direction as well. Finally, on 27.03.2019, the Eviction Notice was issued to the petitioner, which is impugned in the present petition.

¶19

The petitioner claims that he hails from the State of Kashmir and his house in the native village Yeshbutapora, Kul Gam, Kashmir was looted and burnt in the year 1992. He claims that he is on the hit list and he is unable to return to his native Village. In view of the above, the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to continue to occupy the government quarter.

¶20

Plainly, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Although, the petitioner has not indicated the date on which he joined the services of the Indian Army, however, it is apparent that since he had retired in 1995, he would have joined the said service much earlier. Thus, the petitioner has been in the employment of the government/government agencies since past several decades and he had sufficient time to make alternative arrangements for his accommodation.

¶21

The accommodation granted to the petitioner in 1996 was pursuant to

¶22

his joining the employment of Delhi Police and not by virtue of him being a Kashmiri migrant. The petitioner has no right to continue occupying the residential provided pursuant to his employment. The effect of the portioner’s unauthorised occupation of the government quarter is that another employee of the government would be deprived of such accommodation.

¶23

The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application stands disposed of.

¶24

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶25

APRIL 10, 2019 MK

Roshan Lal Tikoo v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal Tikoo v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors.

Progility Technologies Private Limited Vs Software Technology Parks of India and Anr.

Prashant Kumar Umrao Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Ms. Aruvita Mishra Vs Delhi University and Anr.

M/S Swastik Cement Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajni Gupta Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Sunaina Devi Smarak Shikshan Prashikshan Sansthan Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and Ors.

Progility Technologies Private Limited Vs Software Technology Parks of India and Anr.

Prashant Kumar Umrao Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Ayesha Fakhrul Islam Talukdar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Puneet Kochhar Vs Iitl, Nimbus, (through It'S Director/Ceo/Chairman) and Anr.

Kulamani Biswal Vs Union of India and Anr.

D. K. Chopra Vs Registrar General Delhi High Court