Kailash Sharma vs Steel Authority Of India Limited

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.08.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Durg, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2016, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, has been dismissed and the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Estate Officer, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, in Case No. 67 of 2013 has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the learned Estate Officer, whereby an order of eviction from Quarter No. 04B, Street No. 21, Sector 08, Bhilaingar, Tahsil and District Durg, along with recovery of damages for alleged unauthorized occupation, has been passed against the petitioner, as affirmed by the learned District Judge, Durg, in appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was a former Member of the Legislative Assembly from Patan, was allotted the aforesaid quarter on 31.08.1990 at his request to facilitate the discharge of his public duties. The petitioner has never disputed his liability to pay the legitimate outstanding rent and has always been willing to clear the arrears; however, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily calculated the arrears of rent and damages without disclosing any proper basis, applicable formula, or justification for the amount demanded.

He would submit that although the respondent company enhanced the rent payable by third-party allottees pursuant to its decision dated 21.03.2021, the amount recoverable from the petitioner has not been assessed in accordance with any duly established or disclosed criteria. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not renew the allotment arrangement owing to the absence of proper information and that the respondent company failed to afford him an effective opportunity to complete the requisite formalities. The evidence of the applicant company's witness, Shri S.K. Guhe, Assistant Manager, House Allotment Section, regarding the notices dated 25.04.2012 and 21.11.2012, has not been properly appreciated in its entirety, and the authorities have failed to consider the petitioner's explanation in its correct perspective.

Learned counsel would also submit that the learned Estate Officer passed the eviction order without following the prescribed procedure and without affording the petitioner an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing in respect of the proposed recovery of damages. It is submitted that the learned District Judge, while dismissing the appeal, failed to properly examine the objections raised by the petitioner concerning the legality of the proceedings, the determination of the outstanding rent and damages, and the absence of a proper basis for quantifying the amount claimed. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders suffer from material irregularities and non-consideration of relevant facts and are liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Estate Officer vide order dated 12.08.2016 and affirmed by the learned District Judge, Durg, vide order dated 11.08.2021. It is submitted that the subject Quarter was allotted to the petitioner on 31.08.1990 and, pursuant to the decision of the respondent company enhancing the rent, notices dated 25.04.2012 and 21.11.2012 were duly issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to complete the requisite formalities for renewal of the allotment. Despite receipt of the notices and repeated opportunities afforded to him during the pendency of the proceedings before the Estate Officer, the petitioner neither completed the requisite formalities nor deposited the enhanced and arrear rent. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner's own admission before the Estate Officer that the allotment arrangement required renewal but could not be renewed by him belies his present contention that no notice was issued or adequate opportunity was afforded to him.

He would further submit that the learned Estate Officer, after considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the parties, rightly passed the order of eviction and recovery of damages, and the learned District Judge, upon consideration of the rival submissions and the record, rightly affirmed the same. It is submitted that the petitioner's objections regarding the assessment of arrears and damages, as well as the alleged denial of an opportunity of hearing, have already been considered and rejected by the courts below and cannot be reagitated in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. Learned counsel would also point out that, in view of the petitioner's failure to pay the damages assessed, a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 4,14,604/- has been issued under Section 14 of the Act of 1971. He would fairly submit that presently, the subject Quarter has been vacated by the petitioner and now the dispute remains with the arrears of rent and other dues. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned orders call for no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition by the parties.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, the question which arises for consideration is whether the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the learned Estate Officer, Bhilai Nagar, directing eviction of the petitioner and recovery of damages for unauthorized occupation of the subject quarter, as affirmed by the learned District Judge, Durg, vide order dated 11.08.2021, warrants interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the subject quarter was allotted to the petitioner on 31.08.1990 and that the proceedings for eviction and recovery of dues were initiated under the provisions of the Act of 1971. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has since vacated the quarter and, therefore, the controversy presently survives with respect to the determination and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. In these circumstances, the legality and correctness of the amount determined by the learned Estate Officer assume particular significance.

The submission of the petitioner is that, although he is willing to discharge his legitimate liability, the arrears of rent and damages have been quantified without disclosing the relevant basis of calculation or the criteria adopted for such assessment. On the other hand, the respondents submitted that notices dated 25.04.2012 and 21.11.2012 were issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to complete the formalities for renewal of the allotment at the enhanced rate of rent, but he failed to comply despite repeated opportunities. The aforesaid circumstances are relevant to the determination of the petitioner's liability; however, the mere existence of notices calling upon him to complete the renewal formalities would not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of determining the amount recoverable in accordance with the applicable rules, the terms governing the allotment, and the relevant provisions of the Act of 1971. The authority concerned is required to ascertain the period for which rent or damages are payable, the rate applicable during the relevant period, the basis on which the occupation was treated as unauthorized, and the manner in which the amount ultimately claimed has been computed. Such determination must be supported by reasons and must enable the affected party to understand the basis of the liability imposed upon him.

In the considered opinion of this Court, while the learned Estate Officer has passed the order dated 12.08.2016 and the appellate court has affirmed the same, the objections raised by the petitioner concerning the basis of calculation of arrears of rent and damages require due consideration, particularly when the petitioner disputes the quantification of the amount payable. The respondents have stated that a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 4,14,604/- has been issued against the petitioner. However, the determination of such liability must reflect a proper assessment of the relevant period, the applicable rates of rent or damages, and the basis for arriving at the amount recoverable. Under the scheme of the Act of 1971, the determination of rent and damages for unauthorized occupation is required to be made in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and after affording the affected person a reasonable opportunity to contest the proposed assessment. The fact that the petitioner failed to complete the renewal formalities or deposit the enhanced rent may be relevant to the determination of his liability, but it does not obviate the necessity of arriving at the amount due through a legally sustainable and reasoned assessment. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served by remitting the matter to the learned Estate Officer for fresh consideration of the quantum of arrears of rent and damages, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Durg, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 31/2016, and the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the learned Estate Officer, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, in Case No. 67/2013, are set aside to the extent they determine the amount of arrears of rent and damages recoverable from the petitioner. The matter is remitted to the learned Estate Officer for fresh determination of the amount payable by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording both parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing and permitting them to produce the relevant documents in support of their respective claims. The parties are directed to appear before the Estate Officer, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, on 28.10.2026, and thereafter, the Estate Officer shall proceed in the case in accordance with law.

The learned Estate Officer shall pass a reasoned order specifying the period of liability, the applicable rates, and the basis of computation of the amount recoverable. The fact that the petitioner has vacated the subject quarter shall also be taken into account while determining the period for which any amount remains payable. The amount, if any, already deposited or recovered from the petitioner shall be adjusted in accordance with law.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the parties' respective claims regarding the quantum of arrears or damages, and the learned Estate Officer shall decide the matter independently on the basis of the material available on record and the evidence, if any, adduced by the parties.

No order as to costs.