Dismissed

Deben Tamuly and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC19 Sept 2022WP(C)/4104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the eviction of a petitioner allotted a house under the Assam State Housing Board's scheme. The Court held that no case for equitable interference exists as the petitioner's possession of a separate self-constructed house and alleged rental of the allotted flat frustrate the scheme's object.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition as no case for equitable interference was made out.

Deben Tamuly and Anr. Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010120992022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4104/2022

¶5

DEBEN TAMULY AND ANR.

¶6

S/O- LATE KHAGENDRA NATH TAMULY, R/O- FLAT NO. 3, MIG (B) BUILDING NO. 4, RENTAL HOUSING SCHEME, HENGRABARI, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781006.

¶7

2: PRATITI TAMULY D/O- DEBEN TAMULY R/O- SIX MILE KHANAPARA DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781022

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM

¶11

2:ASSAM STATE HOUSING BOARD R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781005 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

3:THE COMMISSIONER ASSAM STATE HOUSING BOARD R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781005

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶18

ORDER

¶19

19-09-2022

¶20

1. Heard Shri P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 is aggrieved by the action of the Assam State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to evict him of a house which the petitioner no. 1 claims to have duly allotted to him.

¶21

2. It is projected that under the Rental Accommodation Scheme of the Board, the petitioner no. 1 was allotted a house being Flat No. 3 in the MIG (B) Building No. 4 in Hengrabari, Guwahati. The petitioner no. 1 claims that he and his family has been continuously residing in the same. The petitioner no. 2 is the married daughter of the petitioner no. 1 and it is projected that she and her husband does not have their own accommodation and is staying at a rented accommodation at Six Mile, Guwahati.

¶22

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the move of the Housing Board as would appear from the letter dated 14.12.2021 to evict the petitioner no. 1 from the house allotted.

¶23

5. Shri Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the reasons cited in the impugned communication dated 05.01.2022 as per which the petitioners have not been residing in the Flat and has violated the

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

provisions of chapter XIII 15.1 (p) of the Rules of 1976. The learned counsel has submitted that the Rules would apply if an incumbent was not residing in the premises for a continuous period of 14 days. He accordingly submits that the ground cited is absolutely unreasonable and not sustainable in law. He further submits that the plea of the petitioner no. 1 that the house can be allotted to the petitioner no. 2 who is landless has also not been considered at all.

¶26

6. Shri T.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel of the Board however submits that the projection made by the petitioner no. 1 is not correct at all. Though it is a fact that the reasons cited in the Show Cause Notice dated 05.01.2022 is not residing in the flat in question, by drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 25.07.2022, Shri Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has constructed and is staying in a three storied house at Navoday Path, Hengrabari. As a prima facie piece of evidence, photographs of the said house of the petitioner no.1 have been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. He further submits that till now, there is no denial of the petitioner of this fact and by this act of the petitioner, the entire object of allotting the flat to the petitioner is frustrated. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the flat in question has been given on rent which is clear violation of the scheme.

¶27

7. Shri, Bharadwaj, the learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that he would like to file a rejoinder affidavit.

¶28

8. On a pointed query regarding the ownership of the three stored building photograph of which is annexed at paragraph 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition, no satisfactory answers to be given by Shri Bharadwaj, the learned counsel for the petitioners and he submits that there is no instructions in this regard.

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

9. This Court has duly considered the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties. Though prima facie the ground taken for challenging the action for eviction regarding the continuous absence from the residence for 14 days appears to have some substance, the same cannot be countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, the said provision is a part of the Rules which are not the subject matter of challenge in this petition and secondly the grounds cited in the Show Cause Notice is only in connection with the Rules and it has not been specified that it is only for a period of 14 days that the flat in question has been kept under lock and key. On the other hand, the disclosure made in the affidavit-in-opposition is totally damaging to the case of the petitioner wherein two main contentions have been leveled. Firstly that the petitioner has constructed a three stored building at Navoday Path, Hengrabari and is residing there with his family and secondly the flat in question has been given on rent. Both the grounds cited, in the opinion of this Court are germane and relevant to the present purpose as the entire object to the scheme is to allot houses to persons who are in need and do not own a residence. The other relief which the petitioner is seeking for allotting the house to the petitioner no. 2 is not the pleaded case of the petitioner and otherwise also is not sustainable as the allotment has to be done in a chronological manner by the Board depending on a case to case basis.

¶31

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference by a Court of Equity is made out and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Deben Tamuly and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deben Tamuly and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

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

Sanjit Chakraborty and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Hamidur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Md. Nurul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nitul Neog Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abdul Muktadir Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dani Chand and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.