No Vested Right to Retain Government Accommodation After Losing Public Office — Penal Rent Justified for Unauthorized Occupation: Patna High Court

Patna High Court reaffirmed the settled principle that a former legislator has no vested right to continue occupying government accommodation after demitting office. The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha dismissed the appeal of the former MLA challenging the imposition of penal rent of Rs. 20,98,757/- for unauthorized occupation of a ministerial quarter postresignation. The Court firmly observed, “A person who has been allotted government accommodation in his capacity as MLA/MLC does not have a vested right to hold on to it, once he ceases to be so.” 

The appellant, a five-time former MLA, continued to occupy Quarter No.3, Taylor Road, even after his resignation on 14.03.2014. Subsequently, he was nominated as a member of the State Legislature Research and Training Bureau and claimed that he was entitled to retain the quarter under a 2008 Notification granting members of the Bureau the same perks as sitting legislators. 
 
However, the Estate Officer directed recovery of penal rent amounting to Rs. 20,98,757/- for the period between 14.04.2014 to 12.05.2016, when the appellant overstayed without any lawful authority. The Single Judge rejected his writ, relying on the principle of constructive res judicata since the appellant had earlier withdrawn a similar writ petition unconditionally. 
 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed this Letters Patent Appeal claiming entitlement to the quarter under the 2008 notification. 

The Court had to decide whether the 2008 Notification gave the appellant the right to indefinitely retain the ministerial quarter after ceasing to be an MLA and whether the demand for penal rent was legally sustainable. 

The Court categorically rejected the appellant’s arguments stating, “From a careful reading of the notification dated 21.08.2008, it is apparent that it nowhere provides that a former MLA will continue to retain of his own will and volition the same government accommodation which he had earlier occupied as MLA.” 
 
The Bench remarked, “The moment he ceased to be an MLA he ought to have vacated the quarter immediately and should have requested for allotment of an appropriate accommodation in light of the 2008 Notification, but instead, he arbitrarily and illegally continued to occupy the Government Quarter No.3.” 
 
The Court did not hesitate to term the conduct of the appellant as improper, noting, “The petitioner was continuously pressurizing the authorities to regularize his illegal occupation.” 
 
On Constructive Res Judicata: The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in M.J. Exporters Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India, (2021) 13 SCC 543, holding, “The principles contained in Order 23 Rule 1 CPC are applicable even in writ proceedings. The earlier writ, having been withdrawn without liberty, bars the present challenge.” 
 
On Unauthorized Occupation of Government Bungalows: Quoting Lok Prahari v. State of U.P., the Court strongly remarked, “Unauthorized occupants must realize that their act of overstaying in the premises infringes the right of another. No law or direction can entirely control this act of disobedience but for the self-realization among the unauthorized occupants.” 
 
Referring to S.D. Bandi v. Karnataka SRTC, the Court further observed, “Government accommodations are not private assets. Public resources cannot be held hostage by former office bearers after cessation of their term.” 
 
The Court held that the State was justified in levying penal rent for the entire period of unauthorized occupation. The Court not only upheld the demand but also directed: “We would be inclined to not only direct the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs.20,98,757/- in the State Exchequer within one month of date of this order but also direct him to pay interest of 6% per annum on the said amount from 24.08.2016 up to the date of payment.” 

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench concluded, “For all the aforesaid reasons, we are convinced that this Letters Patent Appeal lacks merit and the appellant has not made out any case for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge passed in writ jurisdiction.” 

Date of Decision: 3rd April 2025