New Delhi: A Delhi Court has vacated an interim order passed on April 18 directing the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to not dispossess Raghav Chadha from the government bungalow without due process of law. The Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik of Patiala House Court in an order passed on October 5, 2023 stated that on April 14 an interim relief was granted to the plaintiff (Raghav Chadha) that he would not be dispossessed from the accommodation without due process of law.
"This is certainly an error apparent on the face of the record and the same needs to be corrected. Accordingly, the order dated April 18, 2023 stands recalled and the interim order stands vacated," the court said.
"Further, after hearing the parties, I find that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any urgent or immediate relief needs to be granted in the present matter for which leave could be granted under Section 80 (2) of CPC. Plaintiff's allotment was cancelled on March 3, 2023, whereas, the suit was instituted on April 17, 2023. The accommodation granted to the plaintiff falls under the definition of a public premises," it said.
As observed in the preceding paras, the accommodation alloted to the plaintiff is only a privilege given to him as a Member of Parliament. He has no vested right to continue to occupy the same after the privilege has been withdrawn and the allotment has been canceled. The argument that the plaintiff was not given hearing before the cancellation of allotment stands rejected as no such notice was required under the Law, said the ADJ Sudhanshu Kaushik.
Earlier on April 18, the Court in its interim order directed that Raghav Chadha, who is staying there with his parents shall not be dispossessed from the bungalow without
due process of law. Court had also said, a prima-facie case is made out for issuing directions to the effect that plaintiff/Raghav Chadha shall not be dispossessed from bungalow No.AB-5, Pandara Road, New Delhi without due process of law.
The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff as he is residing in the accommodation along with his parents. Plaintiff would indeed suffer irreparable injury, in case, he is dispossessed without the due process of law, said the Court.
Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendant is directed not to dispossess the plaintiff from bunglow No.AB-5, Pandara Road, New Delhi without due process of law. Notice of the application under Section 80 (2) of CPC be issued to the defendant to show cause in respect of the relief claimed in the suit, added the court in order passed on April 18, 2023.
Raghav Chadha in its civil suit stated that on July 6, 2022, was allotted Bungalow No.C-1/12, Pandara Park, New Delhi which falls under the category of Type VI Bungalow.
Thereafter, on August 29, 2022, the AAP MP made a representation to the Rajya Sabha Chairman requesting for the allotment of Type-VII accommodation. The said representation of the plaintiff was considered and on September 3, 2022, in lieu of earlier accommodation, he was allotted Bungalow No.AB-5, Pandara Road, New Delhi from Rajya Sabha Pool.
"Plaintiff accepted the allotment and started residing therein along with his parents after carrying out renovation work. It has been stated that plaintiff took the physical possession of the bungalow on November 9, 2022 and the allotment made in his favour was notified in the official gazette. Plaintiff has mentioned that he came to know that the allotment made in his favour has been canceled arbitrarily and this fact was communicated to him on dated March 3, 2023," the court said in its order.
Through the suit, Raghav Chadha has sought directions that a letter dated 03.03.2023 issued by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat may be declared illegal. He has also sought a permanent injunction to the effect that the defendant and their associates may be restrained from taking any further action in consequence of the letter dated March 3, 2023 and they may also be restrained from allotting the bungalow to some other person. Apart from this, Raghav Chadha has also sought damages to the tune of Rs 5,50,000 from the defendant for causing mental agony and harassment, stated the suit.
