Arvind Singla and Another vs Vaish Education Society (Regd.), Rohtak and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiffs Arvind Singla and Anil Mittal are in second appeal having been substantially successful in the trial Court but having been completely non-suited by the lower appellate Court. Factual position in the case is not in dispute. Plaintiffs are Lecturers in defendant No. 3-Institute being run by defendants No. 1 and 2. Plaintiffs were allotted disputed houses in the Institute Campus and are paying rent/licence fee according to rules. However, defendants No. 1 to 3 have passed order dated 15.5.2006 requiring the plaintiffs to pay market rent for the said houses @ Rs. 3,731/-per month for each house. The plaintiffs have challenged the said order. The plaintiffs have alleged that they continued to be Lecturers in defendant No. 3-Institute and, therefore, plaintiffs are not liable to pay market rent as demanded by defendants.

Defendants No. 1 to 3 contended that the houses in question were built under World Bank Assistance Scheme and according to the Government instructions dated 24.1.2002 clarified vide instructions dated 29.3.2005, these houses are meant for employees of aided courses only whereas plaintiffs are Lecturers for unaided course and, therefore, plaintiffs are liable to pay market rent for the said houses in view of aforesaid instructions of the Government. Similar stand has been taken by official respondents No. 4 and 5.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2009 decreed the plaintiffs'' suit but gave liberty to the defendants to pass fresh reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. First appeal preferred by defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 24.3.2011 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed whereas cross-objections preferred by plaintiffs in the appeal have been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As noticed hereinbefore factual position in the case is not in dispute. The houses in question were constructed under World Bank Assistance Scheme. As per Government instructions dated 24.1.2002 (Ex.D.1/D.2) clarified vide letter dated 29.3.2005 (Ex.D.5) by official defendants, these houses are meant for employees of aided courses whereas plaintiffs are admittedly Lecturers in unaided course. Accordingly, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs have to pay market rent for the disputed houses in view of aforesaid Government instructions.

Counsel for the appellants contended that impugned order dated 15.5.2006 requiring the plaintiffs to pay market rent for the disputed houses has been passed by defendants No. 1 to 3 without giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs and, therefore, the said order is not sustainable. Counsel for defendants No. 1 to 3 conceded that no opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiffs before passing the said order. The aforesaid order vitally affects the rights of the plaintiffs adversely. They were paying rent/licence fee for the disputed houses @ Rs. 600/-per month each. By the impugned order, they are being asked to pay rent @ Rs. 3731/-per month each. The said adverse order could not be passed against the plaintiffs without affording opportunity of hearing. Plaintiffs had got the disputed houses almost seven years before the impugned order was passed. After seven years, if market rent was to be recovered from the plaintiffs, it was minimum requirement of principles of natural justice to have at least granted them opportunity of hearing before passing adverse orders against them. In these circumstances, the trial Court rightly decreed the plaintiffs'' suit with liberty to the defendants to pass fresh reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Substantial question of law as to whether impugned order dated 15.5.2006 passed by defendants No. 1 to 3 is illegal and unsustainable having been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The said question is answered in favour of plaintiffs holding that impugned order dated 15.5.2006 is illegal and null and void as the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice without affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant second appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside. Judgment and decree of the trial Court are restored. The parties are left to bear their respective costs throughout.