EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RAndB) DIVISION vs SRI KASHINATH MISHRA

THE Executive Engineer (R & B) Division, Sundargarh, Collector, Sundargarh and the Circle Inspector of Schools, Sundargarh who were opposite parties in C.D. Case No. 186/92 disposed by the District Forum, Sundargarh are the appellants. THE complainant is a School Teacher of Government High School, Ujjalpur. As a Government School Teacher being transferred from one place to another, his grievance is that he was posted as a teacher in B.S. High School, Sundargarh and was allotted with a Government quarter which is in his occupation and he is staying in that quarter with his family members. THE house rent in respect of the said quarter was being deducted from his salary in every month. THE amount so deducted was Rs. 8/- per month from 1978 to July, 1991. From August, 1991 the house rent was enhanced to Rs. 200/- per month and the present appellants demanded the house rent of Rs. 10,586/- from the complainant for the period from 1978 to July, 1991 saying that the same stands out standing arrears against him. He has categorised this order by the present appellants as unjust, unfair, illegal and not supported by law. THE Executive Engineer (R & B) Division is one of the appellants who has filed a show cause before the District Forum. He stated that the house rent for the house allotted to the complainant himself was in fact Rs. 75/- per month from 1.6.1978 to July, 1991, but inadvertently a sum of Rs. 8/- was being deducted from his monthly salary towards the house rent. He referred to a Circular dated 1.8.1991 of the G.A. Department of the Government. According to him the house rent for the Government quarter has been enhanced and the complainant is being demanded the enhanced house rent in respect of the period subsequent to the Circular. So far as the demand of Rs. 10,586/- is concerned it is said to be the arrears outstanding against the complainant from 1.6.1978 to 31.7.1991 during which period the less house rent than payable by him was collected by mistake. After hearing both parties the District Forum came to a conclusion that the present appellants are not entitled to claim Rs. 10,586/- towards arrear house rent at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month for giving any direction for recovery of arrear house rent amounting to Rs. 10,586/- from the complainant and disposed of the case with the aforesaid observation. Hence this appeal.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants apart from contending that the demand of house rent at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month for the aforesaid period was legal and justified and also contended that complainant was not a consumer as defined in the Act and therefore, the case could not be entertained by the District Forum. According to him, occupation of a quarter by Government employee and for that matter occupation of a tenant of a lease hold premises on payment of rent is not a consumer. He has argued that lease is a form of transfer of property with limited rights on payment of rent which comes into existence in pursuance to a contract either written or oral in the event the rent is payable is determined and stipulated in the contract. In case of a Government official, who is entitled to a Government quarter either as a condition of service or by any special arrangement is not equated with those who occupies the house on payment of rent. He therefore contends that the occupier of immovable property on payment of rent is not a consumer as defined in the Act as it is neither a transfer of goods nor availing of any service for consideration. THE rent becomes payable because of the right of occupation of a premises in question and not for the reason that the owner of the house is required to render service in lieu thereof. THE aforesaid analysis of the matter is acceptable. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the basis of the decision of this Commission reported in 76 (1993) CON.L.T. (OSC) 23 in which the State Commission held that residential accommodation to Government servants is a service and the Government servants are coming under the definition of consumer. A different view has been taken in many other cases by this Commission as well as other State Commission. It is how ever not acceptable because a residential accommodation provided to a Government servant would amount to a lodging within the definition of service given in the Act. According to the plain meaning of one word ''lodge'', it means a temporary dwelling to pass a night or more for which payment may be required to be made by the person for availing the lodging. A Government servant or a tenant occupying residential accommodation cannot be equated with the lodging in the said sense of the term. We are however not prepared to accept the analysis made by this Commission in the case referred to above.

This being the position of law, the complainant cannot be a consumer as defined in the Act and consequently the dispute presented before the District Forum was not a consumer dispute. In other words, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the dispute as led before it by the complainant.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously argued that the claim of Rs. 10,000/- and odd by the Government was wholly unjustified in view of the provisions of law. Since we are not going into the merits of the matter and express no opinion in respect of the same for deciding the aforesaid point raised by him is unwarranted, it is open to the complainant- respondent to take recourse to a proper Court of law for relief claimed by him provided if he is so advised and permissible under law. Mrs. Mrinalini Padhi, Member-I agree. Appeal disposed of.