THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1793 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the Accommodation Controller/Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.1 herein, dated 02.01.2010. Respondent No.2 is the owner of premises bearing No.14-31-2, Colluru Mansions, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. At one point of time, the premises were given on rent to an official of the Government. On that basis, respondent No.1 assumed jurisdiction over the premises and the same is said to have been allotted to the petitioner, an employee in Judicial Subordinate Services, vide proceedings, dated 28.12.1999. The petitioner filed O.S.No.1398 of 2008 in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against respondent No.2 for the relief of perpetual injunction and it is said to be pending. Respondent No.2 filed R.C.C.No.24 of 2009 in the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam for eviction of the petitioner and even that is said to be pending. Respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 with a prayer to restore the premises to her. After issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order, directing eviction of the petitioner and restoration of the premises to respondent No.2. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that respondent No.2 is the owner of the premises and that it has been allotted by respondent No.1 to him. The circumstances would have been different altogether, in case the petitioner is still in public service. He retired from service long back. The only ground on which the premises were allotted to him was that he is suffering from paralysis and that the premises are nearer to the Government Hospital. The petitioner has drawn respondent No.2 to unwarranted litigation and harassed her beyond tolerable limits. Taking advantage of his being a member of the Judicial Subordinate Services, he instituted one proceedings or the other against respondent No.2. He is not able to point out any jurisdictional or factual defect in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client may be granted reasonable time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that huge amount of rent from long period is due and that the premises are needed for her immediate occupation. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is granted time till the end of April 2010 provided that he shall clear the arrears of rent by 20.03.2010. If he fails to pay the arrears, he shall be under obligation to vacate the premises on the next day itself i.e. on 21.03.2010. If the petitioner does not vacate the premises either on 21.03.2010 or 30.04.2010, as the case may be, respondent No.2 shall be entitled to resume the premises in accordance with law. Further, the District Treasury Officer, Visakhapatnam shall withhold the pension and other benefits of the petitioner, till he vacates the premises. If any amount is deposited with respondent No.1 towards rent, it shall be made over to respondent No.2 forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.03.2010. Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl