VINOD KRISHNA KAUL, INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (RETIRED) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 602 · Decided: 23-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VINOD KRISHNA KAUL, INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (RETIRED) 
v. 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 23, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Allotment of Government Residence (General Pool) (New Delhi) 
Rules, 1963 (As amended on 1.1.1976) : Clauses (3) and (4). 
C 
Government Employee-Allotment of Government quarter-Employee 
also owning his house-Amended Rule requiring that officer owning house 
shall surrender Govemment accommodation-Employee letting out his own 
house long before amendment of Rules-As a result neither he had possession 
of his own house nor had right to its immediate possession-In the cir-
cumstances non vacation of govemment accommodation-Levy of excess 
D licence fee fo!'-Held not justified. 
E 
F 
G 
Maxim 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia'-Applicability of 
The appellant, a retired IPS Officer was alloted a Government 
quarter while in service. With effect from 1.1.1976 Amendments were 
introduced to the allotment of Government Residence (General Pool), New 
Delhi Rules, 1963. Clause 3 of the Amended Rule required that a govern-
ment servant owning a house himself or in the name of any other 'members 
of his family' shall surrender the government residence in his occupation. 
Clause ( 4) empowered the competent authority to levy damages equivalent 
to the market licence fee in case of contravention of clause (3). The 
appellant alongwith his brother became a joint owner of a house at Delhi 
on 1.4.1974. However, long before the rules were amended i.e. on 1.1.1976, 
the appellant let out his house for three years under section 21 of the Delhi 
Rent Control Act, 1958 after getting orders from the Additional Rent 
Controller. The result was that though he owned a house yet he had neither 
the occupation of the house nor had immediate right to possession. How-
ever, the respondents took note of the fact that the appellant owns a house 
/ at Delhi and consequently called upon him to vacate the government 
residence. The respondents rejected the stand taken by the appellimt that 
he was unable to surrender the Government accommodation as he was only 
H a joint owner of the house which was rented out long ago and levied excess 
602 
V.K. KAUL v. U.0.1 . 
603 
• 
licence fee of Rs. 8696.10 at market rates for government residence for the A 
period from January 1976 to May 1977. The validity of the amended rules 
as well as the levy of excess licence fee was upheld by the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal. Against the decision of the Tribunal an appeal was 
preferred before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The levy and collection of 'excess licence fee' at the market 
rates amounting to Rs. 8696.10 is not sustainable and the appellant is 
entitled to get refund of the same. [606-D] 
2. Clause (3) of the Allotment of Government Residence (General 
Pool) (New Delhi) Rules, 1963 can apply only to a Government servant who 
not only owns the house but also has possession or right to immediate 
possession of that house to enable him to shift from Government residence 
B 
c 
to that house. The rule cannot apply to a Government Officer who merely 
owns a house but does not have its possession or the right to its immediate D 
possession because of its occupation by another person under a legal right 
which the Government servant as an owner cannot override. 
[605-G-H; 606-A] 
3. The legal maxim 'lex non cogil ad impossibilia' has to be borne in 
mind, i.e. the law does not compel a person to do the impossible. In this 
case long before the amendment was introduced on 1.1.1976, the appellant 
let out his house for a limited period of three years from 1.4.1974. Thus 
on 1.1.1976 he was not in a position to move to his own house. That means 
he could not surrender government house and move to his house. There-
fore, the provisions in clauses (3) and (4) could not be applied to him. 
Consequently recovery of the higher rent/damages from the appellant in 
accordance with clauses (3) and (4) was not justified. [606-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10500 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.94/16.3.94 of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in T.A. No. 1 of 1993. 
In-person for •he Appellant. 
A.K. Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
604 
SUPREME COURTREPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R . 
• 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the levy and 
collection of Rs. 8696.10 to

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