JUDGMENT M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 15.1.2001, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
3. The respondent No. 3 British India Corporation Limited (B.I.C.) was an associate of Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited. The Chairman of B.I.C. was also Chairman of Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner was initially appointed in Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited in 1980. Thereafter, he was transferred to several places. The house in question, which belongs to B.I.C. was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1997, as has been stated in para 7 of the writ petition, being House No. 14/104. This was allotted free of cost to the petitioner, who was the General Manager of the Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited at that time. It was provided in his capacity as an officer of the company. Subsequently, in the year 1998, the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Director of the said Company, as is stated in para 9 of the writ petition (vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
4. In para 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was suspended by the Chairman of Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited vide letter dated 7.1.1999 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In para 18 of the writ petition, it is stated that on 15.1.2001, the respondent No. 1 had asked the petitioner to vacate the premises in his occupation. The petitioner is residing in half portion of House No. 14/104. The petitioner has alleged that he is willing to purchase the said house. He has also alleged that the respondents have no right to evict him.
5. We have also perused the counter-affidavit of the B.I.C. Annexure-C.A.-1 is a copy of the allotment order dated 27.6.1997. That order states (in para 2) that the premises is being allotted to the petitioner in view of his employment in Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited. It is also stated in para 3 of Annexure-C.A.-l that the allotment cannot confer any tenancy right on the petitioner. In para 5 thereof, it is stated that the permission granted to the petitioner to occupy the accommodation was at the will of the management, and could be terminated at any time. Thus, a perusal of the allotment order shows that the petitioner was purely a licencee and not a tenant of the said accommodation. In view of Section 60 of the Easement Act, a licence can be terminated at any time and a licencee has no right. The petitioner was given the accommodation in view of his employment in the Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited. In para 4 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that since the Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited now is not part of B.I.C., as such, the petitioner was required to vacate the bungalow (vide Annexure-C.A.-2 of the counter-affidavit).
6. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that, when the period of the allotment came to an end, notice dated 10.5.2000 was issued to the petitioner to vacate the premises, and till, it is vacated, the petitioner would have to pay damages of Rs. 10,000 and lease rent of Rs. 2,000 per month totalling Rs. 12,000 per month vide Annexure-C.A.-3.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner requested through his letter dated 26.4.1999 (vide Annexure-C.A.-4) for allotment/permission for living in the bungalow, for further two years, which was considered through letter dated 16.7.1999, on sympathetic ground, vide Annexure-C.A.-5. A perusal thereof, shows that the petitioner was allowed to retain the bungalow for one year w.e.f. 1.5.1999 on a licence fee of Rs. 2,000 per month. It was made clear in para 4 of the said letter that the permission granted to the petitioner will not confer any tenancy right on him. It was also stated that permission granted for the premises can be terminated at any time by giving a notice. In para 6, it is stated that after one year the petitioner would have to vacate the premises, failing which he will have to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as damages for unauthorized occupation. The petitioner did not pay the licence fee of Rs. 2,000 per month from December, 1999, as is evident from the letter of B.I.C. dated 10.5.2000, Annexure-C.A-.8. Hence he was asked to vacate the premises.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the B.I.C. for extension of the permission/licence for two years. However, extension was granted to the petitioner for one year w.e.f. 1.6.2000, which would expire on 31.5.2001, vide letter dated 19.5.2000 (Annexure-C.A.-7). Evidently, this was done again on sympathetic ground.
9. It is alleged in para 8 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was an erstwhile employee of Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited, which was an associate of B.I.C. However, the Cawnpore Sugar Works has ceased to be an associate of B.I.C. The petitioner is not the employee of B.I.C. and, as such, he has no right to live in the accommodation in question.
10. From the above facts, we are sorry to note that the petitioner, who has held high posts in Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited, is refusing to vacate the premises belonging to B.I.C, without any right or justification. Although the respondents have taken a sympathetic view and allowed the petitioner to remain in possession of the accommodation till 31.5.2001, the petitioner has abused this sympathy and has not vacated the premises till now. This is indeed regrettable. The petitioner has held high posts, and he was not expected to behave in such an improper manner. Decent people vacate premises the moment they realize that they have no right to remain there, but it seems that decency has become a rare commodity now-a-days, even among people, who are occupying, or have occupied high posts.
11. In our opinion no sympathy can be shown to a person like the petitioner, who has illegally remained in possession after 31.5.2001.
12. Writ jurisdiction is equity jurisdiction and we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of a person like the petitioner, who has illegally remained in possession of the accommodation in question and has abused the sympathy shown to him. In our opinion the petitioner was only a licensee of the premises in question, and a licence can be terminated at any time vide Section 60 of the Easements Act.
13. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.
14. The S.S.P., Kanpur Nagar, is directed to evict the petitioner from the accommodation in question within 10 days from today. The learned counsel for the petitioners will serve copy of this judgment on the S.S.P., Kanpur Nagar at the earliest, who will ensure strict compliance of this order.
15. The petitioner must also pay damages of Rs. 12,000 per month from 31.5.2001, till the date of vacation of the accommodation, and this amount must be paid by the petitioner to the B.I.C. within two months from today. If he does not pay the said amount, it will be realized from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
Let copy of this judgment be given to the learned counsel for the respondents by 10.7.2003, on payment of usual charges. The Registrar General of this Court will send copy of this judgment forthwith to the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.