Full Text
•A.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofPronouncement: 06.04.2018
MRS. MAJEET KAUR Petitioner
Through : Ms. Moneesh K. Verma and Mr. Rajneesh Jha, Advs.
Through : Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. L. Gangmei, Adv.
CM Nos.13159-60/2018
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 3343/2018 & CM No.13158/2018
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand of damages and market rent made by the respondents. 2.[1] To be noted, the demand raised is for a sum ofRs.13,35,616/-.
3. The petitioner, it appears, was otherwise entitled to Type-I quarter. The petitioner, however, continued with her family after the death of her husband, who was employed with respondent no.2/ Safdarjung Hospital as a Lab Technician, in Type-II quarter, located at Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi.
4. The petitioner, it appears, was given appointment by respondent no.2/Safdarjung Hospital on compassionate grounds as her husband had died. Though the petitioner has vacated the quarter which was allotted to her husband while he was in service, damages are claimed for the period she was in occupation along with her family while litigationwas pending with regard to regularisation of allotment for Type-I quarter in 2018:DHC:8582 \ her favour.
5. The record shows that via impugned letter dated 31.1.2018, respondent no.2 has put the petitioner to notice that in case the quantified damages are not paid as demanded, her salary would be stopped with effect from March 2018.
6. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Rajesh Gogna accepts notice on behalfofrespondent no.1to 3. Learned counsel says that no counter affidavit is required to be filed in the present matter and that he will advance arguments based on the record, presently, available with the court. 6.[1] Mr. Gogna, though, fairly says that the recovery of damages could only have been carried out by taking recourse to the mechanism provided under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act 1971 (in short'1971 Act')
7. For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to Section 7 ofthe 1971 Act. It is not disputed that show cause notice was not issued tothe petitioner.
8. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take recourse to the relevant provisions of " the 1971 Act to recover the claimed damages.
9. Pending steps being taken in that behal:!^ no coercive measures by way ofeither ofstoppage ofsalary or adjustment ofdues against salary will be takenby therespondents. ^ 10. Accordingly, pending applications shall stand closed. No costs.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J APRIL 06, 2018 mk