LexUNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus WING COMMANDER R.R. HINGORANI (RETD.)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. WING COMMANDER R.R. HINGORANI (RETD.) JANUARY 30, 1987 [A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] Government residential accommodation-Retention beyond the concessional period admissible under SR 317-B-ll (2)-Liabi/ity to pay market rent for the period of such unauthorised occupation under SR 317-B-22 whether contingent upon the Directorate of Estates serving a notice pay market rent for retention of such accommodation-Whether the amount due (difference between Market rent minus concessional Rent) recovered from the commuted pension was contrary to s.11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, by process of seizure and sequestration-Whether presumption of relaxation under SR 317-B-25 be drawn and resultant applicability of doctrin1' of promissory estoppel-Public Premises (Eviction of unauthori<ed occupants) Act, 1971, section 7(2), Supplementary Rules SR 317-B-11(2)(22) and (25) and Pensions Act, 1871 section 11 effect of, Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, cJ963-Principle of Unjust enrichment-Contract Act section 56 pointed out. E The respondent while he was posted as a Squadron Leader at Delhi was on June 27, 1968 allotted by the Directorate of Estate a residential flat in the Curzon Road Hostel on a monthly rent of Rs.16 I, under sub•r.(l) of SR 317-B-!1. Although he was transferred from Delhi to Chandigarh on June 11, 1970, he did not give any intimation of his transfer to the Directorate of Estates and therefore the said aUot- F ment stood automatically cancelled under sub-r. (2) thereof after the concessional period of two months from the date of his transfer i.e. w.e.f. August 11, 1970. The respondent continued in unauthorised occupation of the said flat for a period of nearly five years and in the meanwhile he was being charged the normal rent for that period. On February 28, 1975 the Esta1te Officer having come to know of the trans- G fer of the respondent from Delhi, the Directorate addressed a letter dated March 18, 1975 cane<elling the allotment w .e.f. August 11, 1970. On the next day i.e. the 19tlil, the Directorate sent another letter asking the respondent to vacate thE' flat, which he did on March 25, 1975. The Estate Officer raised a demand for recovery of Rs.38,81I.17 p. under SR 317-B-22 and served the respondent with a notice under s.7(3) of the H Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The 94 - ' , U.0.1. v. WING COMMANDER. R.R. HINGORANI 95 respondent disputed his liability to pay damages for the period of his unauthorised occupation. Thereupon, the Estate Officer initiated pro- ceedings under s. 7 of the Act to recover the amount of Rs.38,811. 17p. Subsequently, the Central Government on a representation being made by the respondent reduced the amount to Rs.20,482. 78p. On compas- sionate grounds and deducted the same on October 30, 1976 from out of the commuted pension payable to him. The respondent filed a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge holding that although the allotment of the flat stood cancelled in terms of sub-r.(3) of SR 317-B-11 w.e.f. August 11, 1970 A B i.e. after the concessional period of two months from the date of his C transfer, the government was estopped from claiming the amount of Rs.20,482. 78p. as damages equivalent to the market rent under SR 317-B-22 for the period from August 11, 1970 to March 25, 1975 on the ground that the government not only knowingly allowed the respondent , to continue in occupation till March 25, 1975 but also charged him -the normal rent of Rs. 161 p.m. presumably under its power of relaxation D under SR 317-B-25. Further, he held that the government having failed to serve the respondent with a notice that he would be liable to pay market rent for the period of his unauthorised occupation, the doctrine of promissory estoppel precluded the government from claiming damages equivalent to the market rent under SR 317-B-22 for the period in question. On appeal, a Division Bench upheld the decision of E the learned Single Judge inainly on the terms of SR 317-B-23 which conferred the power ofrelaxation on the government. Hence the appeal by Special Leave. Allowing the appeal, in part, the Court, , HELD: 1.1 The Government could not unilaterally deduct the amount of Rs.20,482. 78p. from the commuted pension payable to the r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.