Kb Petitioner W HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : B!LASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ‘ Writ Petition No.2E30 of 2006 Mohammad S!o Qutubuddin, Aged 58 years Occupation — B.S.P. Emp§oyee (Retd.) Rio Qr. No. 65/8, Camp-1, Bhuai, Tah. & District Durg (C.G.} Versus Steei Authar'rty of India Ltd. Company Registered under Companies Act, Head Office New Deihi, Through : Dy. General Manager Town Administration , Department' Bhiiai Steei Plant (B.S.P.), Tah. & Dist. Durg (C.G.) Shri Abhay Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Resgondent Agglicant Present : / V 5 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16.6,2006) The subject premise was allotted to the writ petitioner when he was an employee of the respondent - Company. The petitioner retired from service on 1?—04-2001. He was granted time to vacate the suloject premise up to 01-02-2002. The petitioner did not vacate the premise and that led to Estate Officer of the respondent-Company issuing notice. under Sections . 4(1) and 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short “the Act’)! ultimately resulting ,in eviction of the petitioner from the subject premise. Even the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Estate Officer was dismissed by the learned First Additional District Judge. Hence, this writ petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of lndia. (2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. it was contended that in terms of SAIL SCHEME FOR LEASING OF HOU$E TO EMPLOYEES, 2001, the subject premise should have been soldlconveyed to“ the“ petitioner and therefore. the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer of the respondent — Company is iiiegai and untenabie. There is no need for the Court in the present proceedings to appreciate the above contention of the iearned counsel for the petitioner. Suffice it to state that the subject premise was ailotted to the petitioner when he was in the service of the respondent - Company as an empioyee. It is trite that aner the petitioner ceased to be an employee of the respondent-Company, he was under a k1? ‘ iegal obligation ,to vacate and handover the possession of the subject ’ premise to the respondent-Company in order to facilitate the Company to allot the same premise to another serving employee. If the petitioner has any independent legal right to claim that the subject premise ought to have {been sold Iconveyed to him in terms of the SAIL SCHEME FOR LEASING ’OF HQUSE TO EMPLOYEES, 2001, it is open to the petitioner to workout the legal remedies before the jurisdictional Civil Court by instituting a A e. regular suit. That claim of the petitioner is left open. The writ petition is, ‘1» therefore, dismissed. No costs. ‘c / I Sdl~ I l Chief Justice ‘ I