1. This petition under Articles 226/22 of the Constitution of India by Shri V. Motwani has arisen In the circumstances. The petitioner, Shri S. V. Motwani was in the service of Central Government in the Ministry of Works Housing and Supply from 1942 to IV64. On 1st August 1964. the Petitioner was allotted a portion of requisitioned house No. 3 Maharajah Lane Delhi. while the petitioner was working as Executive, Engineer. Delhi State Division No. 1. C. P. W. D. New Delhi., under the control of the Delhi Administration. On 14th September 1959, the Delhi Administration vide letter dated 14th September 1959, copy of which is Annexure R-1, required the petitioner, to vacate the requisitioned premises No. 3. Maharajah Lane. within two months, on the ground that he had been transferred from the Delhi- Administration and in accordance with the standing instructions of the Administration any person transferred,, from the Delhi. Administration is not entitled to retain residential accommodation of the Administration. The petitioner did not vacate the premises within the time allowed and the Delhi Administration initiated proceedings for, the eviction of the, petitioner under the, Public Premises, (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1958. Hereinafter referred to, as the Act. The petitioner filed, an appeal in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi against the eviction proceedings. but his appeal was dismissed , on 21 April, 1961. The petitioner vacated the Premises, 3 Maharajah Lane in May. 1961. On 24th November 1966 the Delhi Administration served a notice on the petitioner requiring him to pay a sum of Rs. 1310.05 p being the difference in the rent which was paid by him and. the rent which he was liable to pay under the Fundamental Rule 45-B. The Petitioner was told that for the period he was in unauthorised occupation of the premises he was liable to pay standard rent plus 3% of the departmental charges under Fundamental Rule 45-B. The petitioner represented to the Delhi Administrations against this demand. The petitioner in his representation stated that he had already, Paid rent at 10 % of his monthly salary and the additional demand of Rs. 1310.05 made by the Department was not legal. This representation of the petitioner was rejected and he was required to pay the sum of Rs. 1310.05 within a fortnight. This amount was not Paid by the petitioner and the amount was sought to be recovered from the petitioner through the Collector at Mathura as arrears of land revenue.
2. The case of, the petitioner is that there is no order under Section 7 of the Act for the recovery of Rs. 1310.05 and the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue Is illegal and without jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. I am of the view that this petition must succeed. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was allotted the requisitioned, house No. 3. maharajah Lane. The allotment of the said. house in favor of the Petitioner was cancelled by the Delhi Administration wide its letter dated 14th September 1959. The petitioner was required to vacate the Premises within two months failing which the, Petitioner was told Proceedings for his eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.1958 would be initiated. The Petitioner did not vacate the premises within the time allowed and the Delhi Administration obtained orders for eviction of the petitioner, under the, Act. The petitioner, vacated the premises in or about May. 1961. In 1966 the respondents required the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1310.05 representing difference In the rent which was paid by him and which he was liable to pav under the Fundamental Rule 45-B. The case of the respondents is that on failure of the petitioner to vacate the premises, after his allotment was cancelled, he became an unauthorised, occupant, and was to be treated as a Private, individual for the Purposes of recovery of rent and under, F. R. 45-B, was liable, to pay standard Tent along with 3% of the departmental charges. The case of the Petitioner on the other, hand is that he had Paid rent at 10% of his salary and the demand made by the Administration is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that no show cause notice was served on him under the Act. and the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue is without jurisdiction. It is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent that no order under Section 7 of the Act has been passed against the petitioner for recovery of its 1310-05 as arrears of rent or damages. Section 14 of the Act Provides that if any Person refuses or falls to pay arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of, Section 7 or the damages payable under sub-section (2) within the time specified in the order relating there to, the Estate Officer may issue certificate for the amount due to the, Collector who shall proceed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. There can bi no doubt that in the absence of an order under Section 7 for the recovery of rent the Collector cannot, proceed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. That being so. I am of the view that the respondents cannot recover the Amount in question as arrears of land revenue from the Petitioner. The proceedings taken by the respondents for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 17310.05 as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner are wholly without jurisdiction and must be quashed.
3. There is another aspect of the case also. The case of the respondents is at the petitioner is liable to pay standard rent along with 3% Departmental charges under Fundamental Rule 45-B. Clause (4) of Fundamental Rights 45-B Provides that when Government supplies a Government servant with a residence leased or requisitioned or owned by Government the conditions specified therein shall be observed. Sub -clause (b) of clause (4) provides that unless otherwise provided the rent chargeable for such residence shall be the standard rent as defined in the clause (3) or 10% of his monthly emoluments whichever is less. The bungalow No.3 Maharajah Lane was a requisitioned house and it was allotted to the Petitioner by the Government. According to sub-clause (b) the petitioner was liable to pay 10% of his monthly emoluments as rent. It is not disputed that the Petitioner had been paying the rent at'10% of his, monthly emoluments Sub-clause (c) of clause (4) provides: -
'Notwithstanding anything contained. In sub clause (b) above a Local Government May -
(i) * * * * * * * * (ii) by general or special order provide for taking a rent in excess of 10 per cent of his emoluments from a Government servant
(1) who is not under its own administrative control or (2) * * * * * * * * (3) * * * * * * * * (4) * * * * * * * *
It appears from clause (c) that Delhi Administration could have by a general or Special order provided for taking rent in. excess of 10% from a Government servant. Who was not under its own administrative control.
4. The counsel for the respondents has not produced any general or special, order issued by the Delhi Administration for taking rent in excess of 10% from a Government servant who is not under its own administrative control. The counsel for the respondents contended that after the Petitioner had failed to vacate the premises within the time allowed the allotment of the house was to be considered as an allotment to a private Person and under the Government of India's decision the Petitioner was liable to pay the rent calculated in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental R. 45-B which would be the standard rent along with 3% Departmental charges. I find it difficult to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. It is not disputed that at the relevant time the Petitioner was a Government servant. On the failure of the petitioner to vacate the house within the time allowed. the allotment made in favor of the Petitioner could not be treated as an allotment to a Private Person. In my View, the case would be covered by clause (4) and in the absence of a general or special order providing for taking of rent in excess of 10 % from a Government servant who is not working under its own administrative control, the Delhi Administration could not recover the rent in excess of 16% of the monthly emoluments. I am of the view that under the under Fundamental Rule 45-B also, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount in dispute.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I allow the petition and quash the order demanding a sum of Rs. 1310.05 from petitioner and further restrain the respondents from realizing the said amount as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner will have his costs of the petition. The counsel is fixed at Rs. 100/-.
6. Petition allowed.