whether due to their tendering the resignation, or on attaining the age of superannuation or for any other reasons, their right to continue in occupation of the flats 10 came to an end. Their possession in the flats became unlawful and unauthorized. They were under contractual and legal obligation to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the flats to their employer i.e. the University so as to enable the University to allot the flats to other employees who were eligible for allotment. 21. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners (respondent nos. 4 and 5) had retired long back from their services and yet they retained unlawful possession of the flats in question. 22. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that respondent nos. 4 and 5 (writ petitioners) were in unauthorized occupation of the flats from the date they ceased to be in the employment of the 11 University and hence were liable to be evicted from the flats and were also liable to pay penal rent to the University for their use and occupation till the date of their eviction. So far it has not been done. 23. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 (writ petitioners) when he contended that since the writ petitioners (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5) deposited some money with the Board for allotment of the flats in their personal capacity pursuant to the decision of the University taken by them in that behalf, a right had accrued in their favour to remain in occupation of the flats even after they had ceased to be in the employment of the University in their individual rights. 12 24. This submission is wholly untenable and deserves rejection for more than one reason. 25. First, It is not in dispute that the University had withdrawn its decision to allot the flats to its employees immediately and also warned them not to enter into any transaction with the Board directly in relation to the flats, else they will have to face the disciplinary action. This was sufficient indication to the employees not to deal with the Board in any manner in their individual capacity: Second, it is also not in dispute that the University even after cancellation of the initial allotment order went on paying monthly installments in lump sum to the Board and the Board in turn also went on accepting the money as and when paid by the University. The acceptance of payment from the University subsequent to 13 cancellation by the Board amounted to revocation of the cancellation order and resulted in restoration of the initial allotment made in favour of the University: Third, the issue in the writ petitions was between the writ petitioners (employees) and the University because the writ petitioners had come into possession of the flats through the University. They had, therefore, no independent cause of action in relation to the issue of flats qua the Board; Fourth, the writ petitioners did not file any suit for specific performance of contract against the Board for enforcement of their alleged independent contractual right in relation to the flats. Their alleged disputes qua the Board in relation to flats, therefore, could not have been gone into in these proceedings: Fifth, in any event, mere payment of 14 Rs.10,000/­ to the Board by the writ petitioners contrary to the directions issued by the University did not create any independent right in their favour and nor such payment even if made by the employees impaired the rights of the University in any manner in relation to the allotment of flats qua Board and lastly, the cancellation having been revoked on account of acceptance of payment from the University by the Board, the original allotment dated 05.07.1976 stood restored in favour of the University .

          REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.8113 OF 2009
THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RANCHI
UNIVERSITY & ORS.        ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING
BOARD & ORS.        …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 21.11.2006 passed
by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in
L.P.A.   No.   440   of   2006,   whereby   the   High
Court   setting   aside   the   order   of   the   Single
1
Judge   allowed   the   L.P.A.   filed   by   the
respondent Nos.9 and 10 herein.
2. In order to appreciate the issues involved
in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the
facts in detail hereinbelow.
3. The appellant is the University at Ranchi
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   University”)
whereas respondent no.1 is the State Housing
Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”)
created under the State Law.
4. On   05.07.1976,  the  Board  allotted  192
Flats to the University for the residence of the
University's   employees   known   as   “Ranchi
University   Housing   Colony”   for   a   total
consideration of Rs.42,24,000/­.
5. In terms of the allotment agreement, the
University was required to pay 10% of the total
consideration   to  the   Board   and  the   balance
2
money   was   to   be   paid   in   180   monthly
installments ­ each for Rs.31,195.30.
6. The   University   paid   10%   of   the   total
consideration   and   started   paying   monthly
installments, which they paid up to the year
1991   regularly.     However,   there   were   some
defaults   made   by   the   University   in   paying
remaining installments.
7. The   University   in   the   meantime   got
possession of the flats and they allotted few
flats to its employees. The University also in
the meantime converted some flats for its use
as Girls Hostel Block. In the meantime, the
University paid lump sum Rs.5 Lakh towards
monthly   installments   to   the   Board   towards
total consideration.
8. The   Board   on   19.10.1989,   however,
raised a demand of Rs.2,62,44,149/­ on the
3
University,   which   included   partly   balance
money   towards   principal   amount   and
remaining   towards   interest   accrued   on   the
defaulted sum. Since  the  University did not
satisfy/pay the demand of Rs.2,62,44,149/­,
the   Board   cancelled   the   allotment   by   order
dated 29.11.1992 and decided to allot the flats
to some of the occupants (employees) who were
by that time retired but continued to occupy
the   flats.   This   allotment   was   made   on   the
request made by the University to the Board.
9. The University, however, on 29.01.1993
realized at their end that there was some foul
play behind sending of the letter of allotment
from the University to the Board for allotment
of the flats to its employees which was done
apparently at the instance of some occupants.
The   University,   therefore,   immediately
4
cancelled  the  request  letter  and  warned  the
concerned employees that they should not act
upon the request earlier sent by the University
to   the   Board   and   nor   should   make   any
payment to the Board to obtain allotment of
flats in their personal capacity. The employees
were   also   warned   not   to   enter   into   any
independent   transaction   with   the   Board   in
relation   to   the   flats   in   question,   else   erring
employees   would   have   to   face   disciplinary
action. The University also wrote to the Board
on 30.01.1993 that the University is also on its
part   requesting   the   State   to   arrange   for
payment   of   balance   money   to   the   Board   to
enable   them   to   complete   the   transaction   in
terms of the allotment order.
10. Despite   this,   19   employees   deposited
Rs.10,000/­ for allotment of the flats to them.
5
In   the   meantime,   the   University   also   paid
Rs.one   lakh,   Rs.five   lakh   and   some   more
money towards the sale consideration to the
Board   on   different   dates.   The   Board   also
accepted   the   said   money   paid   by   the
University.
11.  It is with these background facts, three
writ   petitions,   namely,   Writ   Petition   (C)
No.3652/1996, Writ Petition (C) No.3442/2002
and Writ Petition (C) No.1342/2002 were filed
by the employees­occupants against the Board
and the University seeking therein a prayer for
issuance of the writ of mandamus directing the
Board to execute the lease deed of the flats in
question and allot the said flats in their favour.
The University contested these writ petitions
on several grounds.
6
12. By order dated 08.08.2006, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions.
It was held that the writ petitioners were in
unauthorized   occupation   of   the   flats   in   as
much   as   they   had   no   right   whatsoever   to
either remain in occupation or to ask for any
relief in relation to the flats except to pay penal
rent to the University for their wrongful use
and occupation of the flats.
13. The   writ   petitioners   felt   aggrieved   and
filed   intra­court   appeal   before   the   Division
Bench of the High Court. By impugned order,
the   Division   Bench   allowed   the   appeal,   set
aside the order of the learned Single Judge and
while allowing the writ petitions issued a writ
of mandamus directing the Board to execute
the lease deed of the flats in question in favour
of each occupant on the basis of terms and
7
conditions as prevailing today and as may be
mutually agreed between them.
14. It is against this order; the University has
felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by
way of special leave to appeal in this Court.
15. Heard Mr. Gopal Prasad, learned counsel
for   the   appellant   and   Mr.   Pradeep   Kant,
learned senior counsel for the respondent(s).
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on  perusal of the record of the
case, we are constrained to allow the appeal,
set aside the impugned order and restore that
of the learned Single Judge as indicated below.
17. In our considered opinion, the approach,
reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the
Learned   Single   Judge   was   just,   legal   and
proper as against that of the Division Bench
for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow.
8
18. Firstly,   it   is   not   in   dispute   that   the
original   allotment   of   the   flats   made   by   the
Board   was   in   favour   of   the   University.
Secondly,   it   is   also   not   in   dispute   that   the
University had made substantial part payment
to the Board pursuant to the allotment order,
which the Board had accepted.   Thirdly, it is
also not in dispute that the writ petitioners
were   the   employees   of   the   University,   and
therefore   they   were   allotted   flats   by   the
University   by   virtue   of   their   employment
conditions.  In other words, the writ petitioners
came in occupation of the flats through their
employer i.e. University.   If they were not in
the employment of the University, they would
not have been able to occupy these flats in
their individual right at that point of time for
want of any privity of contract with the Board.
9
19.   In   our   considered   opinion,   the   writ
petitioners’ (respondent nos. 4 and 5) right to
remain in lawful occupation of the flats could
subsist   only   so   long   as   they   were   in   the
employment of the University, and that too on
payment of house rent fixed by the University
as per their policy. In other words, the writ
petitioners   could   exercise   their   right   of
occupation   qua   the   University   only   during
their service tenure subject to fulfillment of the
requisite terms and conditions and their right
of occupation was terminable on their service
tenure coming to an end. 
20. The day on which their services came to
an   end,   whether   due   to   their   tendering   the
resignation,   or   on   attaining   the   age   of
superannuation or for any other reasons, their
right   to   continue   in   occupation   of   the   flats
10
came to an end.  Their possession in the flats
became   unlawful   and   unauthorized.     They
were under contractual and legal obligation to
handover   vacant   and   peaceful   possession   of
the flats to their employer i.e. the University so
as to enable the University to allot the flats to
other   employees   who   were   eligible   for
allotment.
21. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   writ
petitioners   (respondent   nos.   4   and   5)   had
retired long back from their services and yet
they retained unlawful possession of the flats
in question. 
22. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge
has rightly held that respondent nos. 4 and 5
(writ   petitioners)   were   in   unauthorized
occupation   of   the   flats   from   the   date   they
ceased   to   be   in   the   employment   of   the
11
University and hence were liable to be evicted
from the flats and were also liable to pay penal
rent   to   the   University   for   their   use   and
occupation till the date of their eviction.  So far
it has not been done.
23. We are not impressed by the submission
of   the   learned   Senior   counsel   for   the
respondent   nos.   4   and   5   (writ   petitioners)
when   he   contended   that   since   the   writ
petitioners   (Respondent   Nos.   4   and   5)
deposited   some   money   with   the   Board   for
allotment of the flats in their personal capacity
pursuant   to   the     decision   of   the   University
taken by them in that behalf,   a right had
accrued   in   their   favour   to   remain   in
occupation   of   the   flats   even   after   they   had
ceased   to   be   in   the   employment   of   the
University in their individual rights. 
12
24. This submission is wholly untenable and
deserves rejection for more than one reason. 
25. First,   It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the
University had withdrawn its decision to allot
the flats to its employees immediately and also
warned them not to enter into any transaction
with the Board directly in relation to the flats,
else   they   will   have   to   face   the   disciplinary
action.   This   was   sufficient   indication   to   the
employees not to deal with the Board in any
manner in their individual capacity: Second, it
is also not in dispute that the University even
after cancellation of the initial allotment order
went on paying monthly installments in lump
sum to the Board and the Board in turn also
went   on   accepting   the   money   as   and   when
paid   by   the   University.   The   acceptance   of
payment   from   the   University   subsequent   to
13
cancellation   by   the   Board   amounted   to
revocation   of   the   cancellation   order   and
resulted in restoration of the initial allotment
made in favour of the University: Third, the
issue in the writ petitions was between the writ
petitioners   (employees)   and   the   University
because   the   writ   petitioners   had   come   into
possession of the flats through the University.
They had, therefore, no independent cause of
action in relation to the issue of flats qua the
Board; Fourth, the writ petitioners did not file
any suit for specific performance of contract
against   the   Board   for   enforcement   of   their
alleged   independent   contractual   right   in
relation to the flats. Their alleged disputes qua
the Board in relation to flats, therefore, could
not have been gone into in these proceedings:
Fifth,   in   any   event,   mere   payment   of
14
Rs.10,000/­   to   the   Board   by   the   writ
petitioners contrary to the directions issued by
the University did not create any independent
right in their favour and nor such payment
even if made by the employees impaired the
rights   of   the   University   in   any   manner   in
relation to the allotment of flats qua Board and
lastly, the cancellation having been revoked on
account   of   acceptance   of   payment   from   the
University by the Board, the original allotment
dated 05.07.1976 stood restored in favour of
the University .
26. In   the   light   of   the   foregoing
discussion/reasons,   we   cannot   concur   with
the   reasoning   and   the   conclusion   of   the
Division Bench and are inclined to agree with
that of the learned Single Judge.
15
27. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned order is set aside, and that of
the   learned   Single   Judge   restored.   The   writ
petitions   out   of   which   this   appeal   arises   is
accordingly dismissed.           
28. Needless to observe, the University would
be   at   liberty   to   proceed   against   the   writ
petitioners seeking their eviction from the flats
in question by filing appropriate proceedings
before   the   Competent   Authority   under   the
Public   Premises   (Eviction   of   Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 and also claim in the
said proceedings arrears of penal rent payable
by   the   writ   petitioners   from   the   date   their
possession became unauthorized in the flats
and University till their delivery.
29. The University is also at liberty to finalize
the   issue   of   allotment   of   the   flats   with   the
16
Board   with   the   intervention   of   the   State
expeditiously. It will be for the benefit of the
University and its employees, in service.
30. Likewise, the writ petitioners and other
employees (occupants) would also be at liberty
to take refund from the Board of their paid
amount, which they claimed to have deposited
with the Board for allotment of the flats along
with interest at a reasonable rate.
31.  On such request being made by the writ
petitioners, the Board will refund the money to
the writ petitioners and any such employees
within three months from the date of making a
demand after verification as an outer limit.
17
32. In the light of this order, the intervention
application   and   impleadment   application
stands disposed of.       
…...……..................................J.
         [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
.………...................................J.
  [INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
October 23, 2018.
18