Partly allowed

B.Pushpavathi v. Chief Administrative Officer, and Accounts Officer/

Telangana HC23 Apr 2013CRP/3944/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court addressed a civil revision regarding eviction and arrears of rent. It held that penal rent could not be levied before eviction order. Petitioner must vacate by May 2013 and pay 50% of HRA as arrears. Retirement benefits ordered to be released.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to release retirement benefits; petitioner to vacate premises by end of May 2013 and pay 50% of HRA over usual rent as arrears from March 2010.

B.Pushpavathi Vs Chief Administrative Officer, and… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.3944 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner was working as Technician – D, in a Department of Central Government. She has been allotted Quarter No.7-303 (Type – IV), in Divyashakti Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, in the year 2008, by the concerned authority. In the ordinary course, the said quarter must be allotted to the employees, who are one rank above the petitioner.

¶5

It appears that for want of proper demand, the petitioner was allotted the said quarter. The Chief Administrative Officer and Accounts officer/Estate Officer, Atomic minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, the respondent herein, addressed a letter, dated 20.07.2009 to the petitioner requiring her to vacate the quarter at Divyashakti Apartments and allotting Quarter No.G-131, Type-II, 106 Residential Flats, Shamlal, Begumpet. Even according to the said letter, the quarter offered to her is one step below her rank.

¶6

Stating that the quarter allotted to her is only with one bed room and she has recently performed the marriage of her son and daughter, she made a request to permit her to continue in the quarter at Divyashakti apartments. That request, however, was not acceded to and proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The respondent passed an order, dated 02.03.2010 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days from the date of publication of the order. Challenging the order, dated 02.03.2010, the petitioner filed

¶7

C.M.A.No.49 of 2010 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed, on 04.08.2011. Hence, this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶8

Heard Ms. G.Rama Lakshmi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General.

¶9

The quarter at Divyashakti apartments was of the category, which could have been allotted to employees of rank above than that of the petitioner. However, since there was no application from that category of employees, the petitioner was offered the said quarter. It is not a case where the petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied any quarter of a category beyond her entitlement. Hardly within one year from the date of allotment, the respondent had made request to vacate the quarter. The curious part of it is that when the allotment made in September, 2008, was over and above the entitlement of the petitioner, the allotment made in 2009 is one step lower than her entitlement. Explaining her difficulty, problems and inconvenience, the petitioner requested the respondent to permit her to remain in the quarter at Divyashakti apartments. That request was not acceded to and the order of vacation was passed in March, 2010. The C.M.A. filed by her was dismissed, on 04.08.2011. It is stated that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation recently and retired from service.

¶10

Now that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, she has to vacate the quarter. She has been staying in the quarter at Divyashakti apartments, initially on being allotted, and thereafter, on the strength of the interim orders. It is stated that the retirement benefits of the petitioner are withheld, on the ground that penal rent,

¶11

running to about Rs.7 lakhs, is to be recovered. The particulars are also furnished.

¶12

This Court is of the view that once the allotment of the petitioner was made by the competent authority, no penal rent can be levied, till the order of eviction is passed by the competent authority. That took place only on 02.03.2010. Her stay in the quarter beyond that date, cannot be said to be illegal, since the appellate Court stayed the operation of the order of eviction. Even during the pendency of this revision, there was an interim order. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is required to pay 50% of HRA, over and above the usual rent for the period from March, 2010 till the date of vacating the premises. The petitioner undertook to vacate the quarter by April, 2013.

¶13

Hence, the C.R.P. is partly allowed, directing that the respondent shall be entitled to collect arrears of rent for the premises calculated at the usual rate plus 50% of the HRA admissible to the petitioner for the period between March, 2010 and date of vacating the premises, provided she vacates the premises by the end of May, 2013. The concerned authority shall release the retirement benefits to the petitioner, without affecting any further amount towards penal rent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition shall stand disposed of.

¶15

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶16

Dated:23.04.2013

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶19

Civil Revision Petition No.3944 of 2011

¶20

Date:23.04.2013

¶21

B.Pushpavathi v. Chief Administrative Officer, and Accounts Officer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Pushpavathi v. Chief Administrative Officer, and Accounts Officer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muvvala Chinnayya (died) Vs The Special Officer and Competent Authority

The Dargah Hazrath Mansoorshah Wali Vs Shaik Yakub Ali

Chitikela Nooka Raju, Vs Ruthala Sreerama Murthy

Syed Azeemuddin, Vs Smt. Rehmatunissa Begum

Smt. Polas Shalini , Ch. Santhoshi Bai, Vs Polas Shiva Kumar

Dogga Demudu, Vs Sukhivhava Chit Fund Private Limited