M/s Pandey Enterprises vs G.B. Pant University And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioner is a proprietorship firm, which engages itself in the construction of buildings and supply of material to the various organisations. For the purposes of performing certain construction work, the petitioner was engaged by the respondent University and, in lieu thereof, since the project was to continue for a sufficient long period, the petitioner was allotted accommodation to accommodate their employees, who were working under the project.

In pursuance to the said allotment, the petitioner occupied the premises, which was House No. 651/7A Chakferi Colony, Pant Nagar, which was allotted to the petitioner on 31st January, 2008. Admittedly, the induction of the petitioner in the accommodation, in question, was as a consequence of the allotment order dated 31st January, 2008. Clause 4 of the said allotment order contained a condition that the allotment thus made by the respondents could be terminated at any time as per the requirements of the University. Clause 4 of the allotment order reads as under :-

"इस मकान का आवंटन अस्थाई तौर पर किया जा रहा है और यदि विश्वविघालय चाहे तो इसे रदद भी कर सकता है।"

In the case, at hand, the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 17th June, 2015, as issued by the respondent No. 2, by virtue of which, the allotment made in their favour on 31st January, 2008, has been cancelled. The petitioner had simultaneously made a prayer of mandamus to the effect directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property, in question.

Admittedly, as per the terms of the allotment, the petitioner has got no lien as such to continue to occupy the accommodation allotted to him during the period of subsistence, when the project in which he was engaged was continued by the University. After completion of the tenure of the project, it goes without saying that the petitioner, who was otherwise not having any other relationship with University like that of master and servant, being its employees or otherwise, had to vacate the premises as soon as the work of the project was over or the petitioner was not engaged in any other future or on going projects.

By virtue of the impugned order dated 17th June, 2015, which is under challenge before this Court, the allotment made on 31st January, 2008, has been cancelled with immediate effect on the ground that for the last one year, the petitioner has not been engaged by the University in any other on going construction projects and, hence, they do not have any right to continue to occupy the property of the University and, consequently, the notice was issued to the petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of one week from its service.

This order was put to challenge by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition on 24th June, 2015. On perusal of the ordersheet, it reveals that as a matter of fact for last more than 32 months, there was no interim protection granted by this Court and quite obviously, with the passage of time, the notice impugned dated 17th June, 2015, must have been made effective.

Be that as it may. Even otherwise also, after going through the order dated 17th June, 2015, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had no indefeasible rights to continue to occupy the accommodation allotted to him in lieu of his engagement in the project for an indefinite period because his right to continue to occupy the premises was under the principles of convenience for him to undertake the project effectively. As soon as the project stands closed or he is not engaged in any other future project which is being run by the University, the petitioner does not have a right to continue to occupy the premises and thus the notice issued to the petitioner on 17th June, 2015 to vacate the premises within one week do not suffer from any apparent error of law.

Even otherwise also, it goes without saying that since after filing of the writ petition, no interim order was granted nor any subsequent application has been filed by the petitioner seeking to get an interim order of protecting his right to continue to occupy the premises, it goes without saying that in all probability the notice dated 17th June, 2015, must have been made effective and the petitioner as a consequence thereto ought to have vacated the premises by now.

In view of the above, the petitioner has got no indefeasible rights to occupy the premises for the following reasons :

(1) For the reasons that the petitioner has got no indefeasible right to continue

(2) He took the allotment under the condition contained in Clause 4 that University had reserved his rights to cancel the allotment at any point of time, to which, petitioner was equally bound.

(3) Admittedly, there is no denial of the fact that petitioner was not engaged in any other future construction project of the University and;

(40 Lastly, there is nothing on record brought by the petitioner to show that for last over one year from the date of passing of the order, he was ever engaged in other project which is run by the University.

Consequently, with the cessation of the project, in which the petitioner was engaged and with the expiry of its time period, he would too simultaneously lose his rights to continue to occupy the premises allotted to him in lieu of his engagement in the project.

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has got no indefeasible rights to continue to occupy the premises when allotted to him under certain conditions for a definite period or event when he was only engaged upon the project of construction being organized by the University.

Consequently, the Writ Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs