TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification dated 1.1.1976 issued by the Ministry of Works and Housing New Delhi, certain amendments were introduced to the Allotment of Government Residence (General Pool), New Delhi Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules. Clauses 3 and 4 are relevant which read as follows : (3) If on the 1st day of January , 1976, an Officer in occupation of Government residence owns a house or any other member of his family owns a house, he shall surrender the Government residence in his occupation. (4) Where an officer to whom sub -rule(3) is applicable does not surrender the Government residence as required under that sub-rule, he shall be liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the residence, services, furniture and garde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi High Court. He thereafter moved the Delhi High Court challenging the amendment issued in the Notification dated 1.1.1976 and the same was later on transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which by the impugned order upheld the validity of the amendment and declined to interfere with the impugned collection towards damages for use and occupation for the said period. Hence this appeal by way of special leave. From the paper book, we find that except for 2 paragraphs out of 29 pages, the Tribunal has dealt with the contentions raised by the appellant regarding the constitutional validity of the amendment introduced in the Rules on 1.1.1976 in rest of the paragraphs. In this process, both the Tribunal as well as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession because of its occupation by another person under a legal right which the Government servant as an owner cannot override. Clause (3) was, therefore, not in-tended to apply to a Government servant who neither had the occupation of a house owned by him nor the right to its immediate possession. The legal maxim 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' has to be borne in mind, i.e, the law does not compel a person to do the impossible. In the present case, in view of the subsisting lease in favour of the tenant, the commencement of the lease being prior to 1.1.1976 and the entire period in question being covered by the period of that lease, the provisions in clauses (3) and (4) could not be applied to the appellant, even if the he is as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
