THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RANCHI UNIVERSITY & ORS. versus JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1084 · Decided: 23-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RANCHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.
v.
JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 8113 of 2009)
OCTOBER 23, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Eviction – Eviction of unauthorised occupants – Respondent-
State Housing Board allotted flats to the appellant-University for
the residence of the University’s employees – In terms of allotment
agreement, University was required to pay 10% of the total
consideration fixed and balance in 180 installments – University
got possession of the flats and they allotted few flats to its employees
– However, University defaulted in payment of installments and
consequent to which Board raised demand of defaulted sum –
University failed to make the payment and consequently, the Board
cancelled the allotment, but decided to allot the flats to some of the
occupants (retired employees) on request made by the University –
Thereafter, University realised that there was some foul play in
sending of letter of request for allotment to the Board and therefore,
cancelled the request letter, and warned the concerned employees
to not act upon such request and nor should make any payment to
the Board – Despite this, employees (including retired employees-
respondent nos. 4 and 5) made payments for the flats allotted to
them and University also made some payments towards the sale
consideration – Whether retired employees-respondent no.4 and 5
were in unauthorised occupation of the flats and were liable to pay
penal rent to the University for their wrongful use and occupation
of flats –  Held: The occupants (respondent nos. 4 and 5) had right
to remain in lawful occupation of the flats only so long as they were
in the employment of the University, and on payment of the house
rent fixed by the University as per their policy – The day their services
came to an end, their possession in flats became unlawful and
unauthorised, and they were under contractual and legal obligation
to handover the possession of flats to their employer – Insofar as
money deposited by the respondent nos.4 and 5 to the Board contrary
to the directions issued by the University is concerned, the payment
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1084
1084
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1085
made by the respondent nos.4 and 5 did not create any independent
right in their favour and nor such payment even if made by the
employees impaired the rights  of the University in any manner in
relation to the allotment of flats qua Board – Furthermore, the
cancellation order of the Board was revoked when it accepted the
lump sum payments of monthly installments from the University and
resultantly, the original allotment stood restored in favour of the
University – Thus, respondent nos. 4 and 5 liable to be evicted from
the flats and also liable to pay penal rent to the University for their
use and occupation till the date of their eviction – Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  The writ petitioners’ (respondent nos. 4 and 5)
right to remain in lawful occupation of the flats could subsist only
so long as they were in the employment of the University, and
that too on payment of house rent fixed by the University as per
their policy. In other words, the writ petitioners could exercise
their right of occupation qua the University only during their
service tenure subject to fulfillment of the requisite terms and
conditions and their right of occupation was terminable on their
service tenure coming to an end.  [Para 19][1090-C]
2. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners (respondent
nos. 4 and 5) had retired long back from their services and yet
they retained unlawful possession of the flats in question.  The
Single Judge of the High Court has rightly held that writ
petitioners (respondent nos. 4 and 5)  were in unauthorized
occupation of the flats from the date they ceased to be in the
employment of the University and hence were liable to be evicted
from the flats and were also liable to pay penal rent to the University
for their use and occupation till the date of their eviction.
[Paras 21 and 22][1090-F-G]
3. The  contention  of  the respondent nos. 4 and 5 that
since they had deposited some money with the Board for allotment
of the flats in their personal capacity pursuant to the  decision of
the University taken by them in that behalf,  a right had accrued
in their favour to remain in occupation of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.