Mere fact that the petitioner did not physically hand over the possession of the premises, does not entitle the petitioner for any protection: Delhi High Court
It is a factual analysis that if a person, when ordered to vacate a possession, as a result does not vacate the same, there arises no point in demanding relief from the court. In the recent matter of Sushil Dutt v. Estate Officer/ AOC & Anr. [CM (M) 446/2021], before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court the above was held. The said matter was heard on September 7th 2021 before a single judge bench presided by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.
The facts of the above case are as follows. Petitioner was appointed as an LDC in 1998 under the indigent circumstances on compassionate ground by the Air Officer In-Charge Personal (AOP), who holds the rank of an Air Marshal. A case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. However, the petitioner denied allegations of corruption instituted against him. Further, he was convicted and was dismissed through the operation of Rule 14 read with Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965.
In the light of the above, the petitioners were requested to vacate their quarter which was given to the petitioner in the virtue of their post in the Air Force. After the conviction, Proceedings were also instituted under Public Premises Act. On getting the order from the lower coirt, the petitioners filed the case in the Delhi High Court.
The court in its order held that “Since petitioner does not remain in the service and has been struck off from the strength of the Air Force, petitioner is not entitled to continue in possession of the accommodation which was allotted to him being in service”. It was ordained by the court that “Mere fact that an appeal is pending against an order of dismissal does not entitle petitioner to continue in occupation of the quarter meant for service personnel and allotted to the petitioner and consequently to an interim protection.” In the lines of the above, the court also opined that “Mere fact that the petitioner did not physically hand over the possession of the premises, does not entitle the petitioner for any protection.”