Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday "allowed" Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha's appeal challenging the trial court’s order which paved way for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to evict him from his Type VII government bungalow.

The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said "The appeal is allowed. Holding that, there was no requirement for the appellant/plaintiff to file the application under S. 80 CPC or to comply with that provision. Therefore the application u/S. 80 is disposed of rendering infructuous".

The judge directed Chadha to re-present before the trial court within three days from today. It also directed the trial court to first proceed with the matter by first deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, which stands restored before it.

The court also ordered, "In the meantime, the order dated 18th April 2023 shall stand wiped, till the application under Order 39 Rule 1and 2 is decided by the Learned Trial Court".

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, represented Chadha and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee appeared on behalf of Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

On October 11, the senior counsel for the AAP leader contended that Chadha is a victim of “selective targeting” as he has been a vocal opposition member of Parliament. The senior counsel had said that Chadha is the only sitting lawmaker in the Rajya Sabha ever to have been sought to be evicted from the bungalow allotted to him.

He had submitted that the allotment of accommodation is an exercise of guided discretion and is made after taking into account the circumstances peculiar to the MP concerned, and in the exercise of this discretion, out of 245 sitting MPs in the Rajya Sabha, 115 have been granted accommodation above their ‘default’ entitlement.

On the contrary, ASG Banerjee had argued that Chadha cannot seek negative equality over holding government property. The negative equality principle implies that if the State has wrongly granted a benefit to one person, another cannot claim a similar benefit just because of that, he told. 

The ASG had contended that if it were held that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat does not fall under the definition of "public officer" under Section 80 CPC, it would have "greater repercussions" on the law in the future.

Trial Court Proceedings 

On October 5, Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik vacated an earlier order that stopped the Rajya Sabha Secretariat from evicting Chadha from his government accommodation. The judge had said that Chadha had “no vested right” to continue to occupy his government bungalow after the cancellation of its allotment.

"Plaintiff (Chadha) cannot claim that he has an absolute right to continue to occupy the accommodation during his entire tenure as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The allotment of Government accommodation is only a privilege given to the plaintiff and he has no vested right to continue to occupy the same even after the cancellation of allotment," the court had said.

In June 2023, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat was directed by the court not to evict him from a Type-7 bungalow in Lutyens’ Delhi, which is usually allotted to lawmakers who are former ministers, chief ministers or governors, till the pendency of his application and without following the due process of law. ".. the argument that the accommodation once made to a Member of Parliament cannot be cancelled under any circumstances during the entire tenure of Member of Parliament deserves rejection," the court had clarified in the order.

Emphasising that Chadha had "no vested right in the accommodation and his status is akin to that of a licensee", the court had said that it "could be revoked by the competent authority at any time."

Earlier, Chadha had moved the trial court, stating the cancellation of the allotment of his Type VII bungalow on Pandara Road, New Delhi, did not follow due process of law, was “arbitrary”, and that “no reasons were provided” for it.

The AAP leader had claimed that for removing an MP from the bungalow, reasons must be provided in the letter of allotment. While appealing against the eviction, Chadha had prayed that he was residing with his parents.

Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat