P.S. Puri and Others vs International Airport Authority of India and Others

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.

(1) The petitioners were or are employees of International Airport Authority of India, which is the respondent. They have obtained loans from the respondent while purchasing flats from the Delhi Development Authority. All these petitioners are also residing in the quarters belonging to the respondent allotted to them as employees of the respondent. There is no dispute that the quarters under the occupation of the petitioners are to be a vacated by them unconditionally on ceasing to be the employees of the respondent. In other words the occupation by the petitioners of the premises which were allotted to them by the respondent is by virtue of their respective employment under the respondent. They do not get any ownership right.

(2) The problem that has arisen which has to be considered by me, pertains to the loans advanced by the respondent in favor of the petitioners. The respondents contend that the petitioners were not at liberty to lease the flats purchased by them from Dda without permission of the respondent. Since the petitioners have leased the flats which they purchased from the Dda, respondent sought to evict the petitioners from the respective quarters allotted to them.

(3) The respondent relies on regulation 15(i) of Iaai (Staff Housing Loan)Regulations, which reads as follows:-

"THE employee shall not, except with the express consent in writing of the competent authority sell the house built or acquired by him with the assistance of the loan, before the loan is repaid in full together with interest accrued thereon .If, for any reason, however, the employee desires to sell the house or to give it, or part thereof on rent before the loan is so repaid, he shall be bound to give the Authority the first option to purchase or rent it, as the case may be."

A reading of the aforesaid regulation nowhere states that the employee is liable to be evicted from the staff quarters if the employee concerned lets out the house or the flat purchased by the employee by borrowing from the respondent .This apart, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that admittedly the aforesaid regulation was not published in the Official Gazette as required u/s 38 of the International Airports Authority Act, 1971.

(4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner is certainly justified in relying on Section 38. Section 38 makes it clear that under the Act the regulations shall have to be notified in the Official Gazette and in case the regulation is made by the Authority the same shall have effect only after the regulation is approved by the Central Government and published in the Official Gazette. Therefore, it is, clear that without a proper notification of the regulation In the Official Gazette the regulation cannot be enforced.

(5) The respondent in the counter affidavit seems to rely on an alleged contract between the parties i.e. to say between the employee concerned and the respondent to the effect that the employee would not lease or sell the flat purchased by the employee by obtaining loan from the respondent & in such a situation if the permission is not obtained the employee is liable to be evicted from the quarter according to the regulation. It should be noted that even according to this statement of the respondent the eviction can be done only according to the regulation .But there cannot be any regulation until it is duly notified as per Section 38 of the Act''. Section 2(h) of the aforesaid Act states that the regulation means the regulation made under the Act and the regulation can be made under the Act only after duly notifying the same u/s 38.

(6) In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed .The respondent is directed not to evict the petitioners from the respective quarters allotted to them as staff quarters subject to the condition that if any of the petitioners ceases to be an employee by retirement or by death the employee or his legal representatives shall vacate the premises subject to a reasonable time being given to the concerned petitioner or his legal representatives to make alternative arrangement. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.