Delhi HC allows Raghav Chadha’s plea against trial court order on bungalow eviction

Chadha’s counsel had submitted before the high court that the MP has been served with a notice and eviction proceedings are going on

The Delhi high court on Tuesday allowed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) member of Parliament Raghav Chadha’s plea in the trial court order that lifted an interim order preventing the Rajya Sabha secretariat from removing him from the government bungalow allotted to him.

Chadha had challenged the trial court’s October 5 order which vacated the April order. (PTI photo)

A single bench led by justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani revived the city’s court’s April 18 order restraining the Rajya Sabha secretariat from dispossessing the MP from his bungalow till adjudication of his application seeking stay against eviction.

The court has directed Chadha to approach the city court within three days with his application for interim relief while directing the trial court to first decide on the same in accordance with law.

Chadha had approached the high court against city court’s order that had paved Rajya Sabha secretariat’s way for dispossessing the MP from his official residence.

“The appeal is allowed. Holding that A) there was no requirement for the appellant to file an application under 80 CPC to comply with that provision thus the application under 80 CPC is disposed of as infructuous. Directing the appellant to be present in the court within three days of the pronouncement of the judgement with the direction to the trial court to first decide the application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 & thus to proceed in accordance with law. In the meantime, the order dated 18/4 shall stand revived till the application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 is decided by the trial court,” the bench said while pronouncing the verdict.

The high court while reserving verdict on Thursday had refused to grant an interim stay against the proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer under the eviction law but had taken on record Chadha’s statement that he would urge the Estate officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to defer the proceedings listed for Friday.

Chadha on September 8, 2022 was allotted a Type VII bungalow at Pandara Road from the Rajya Sabha pool and took possession of the bungalow in November 2022.

However, on March 3, 2023, his allotment was cancelled on the grounds that he was a first-time MP and was entitled to only a Type VI bungalow.

Subsequently, Chadha moved a Delhi trial court, which in an April 18 interim order restrained the secretariat from dispossessing the MP from the bungalow till the adjudication of his suit seeking permanent injunction.

However, the Rajya Sabha secretariat moved an application in the trial court, seeking a review of its interim order.

Vacating the same on October 5, additional district judge Sudhanshu Kaushik observed that no one had a vested right to continue to occupy a government allotted house after the privilege was withdrawn.

The judge had observed that the MP had failed to provide urgency to receive the interim relief under section 80(2) of CPC and had said that both sides should be given time to decide the urgency of the matter. Although under section 80 (1) a suit can be filed against the government or a public officer, the person can only institute the same only after giving a two-month notice, but section 80(2) exempts the person to give the said notice in case of urgency.

Chaddha appearing through senior advocate AM Singhvi told the court that he was being selectively targeted by the Rajya Sabha secretariat for cancelling the allotment of his Type VII bungalow.

He argued that although the MP was allotted Type VII bungalow after a proper application of mind by Rajya Sabha Chairman and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar considering the fact that he was provided Z plus security but the letter for cancellation of allotment was issued by Chairman of the House Committee.

Rajya Sabha Secretariat appearing through ASG Vikramjit Banerjee told the court that Chadha could not say that the house committee was not entitled to cancel the allotment.

“As till date no order has been passed by the Estate Officer. Eviction proceedings have not been initiated. He couldn’t have registered the suit & should’ve heard me before passing this order (April 18, 2023 order),” Banerjee had added.

Responding to Banerjee’s argument regarding Chadha’s failure to issue notice before instituting a suit against the secretariat, Singhvi in his rejoinder argued that the secretariat was neither public officer nor government.

“These (RS secretariat) are employees discharging public functions, public duties. Mr Banerjee said, “if I don’t fall here (under the category of government), I fall here (under the category of public officer),” Singhvi had said.