### Unauthorized Retention of Government Accommodation by Retired Employees Consitutes Illegal Occupation Lacking Enforceable Rights

The Appellant, acting as President of a registered association, challenged a City Civil Court judgment that dismissed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and specific performance regarding ten blocks of residential quarters in Ahmedabad.

These quarters were originally constructed for Class-IV government employees from backward classes.

The Appellant contended that under a 1988 Government Resolution (GR), such quarters should be sold to the occupants at a concessional rate.

The State argued that the Appellant lacked locus standi as he was not a government employee but an encroacher in a unit allotted to his retired mother.

Furthermore, the State asserted the land was required for a public redevelopment project for the Civil Hospital.

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the appeal and Section 80 of the CPC regarding mandatory notice to government authorities.

Division Bench precedent in N.K. Parmar v. State of Gujarat established that employees have no vested right to purchase quarters allotted during service tenure.

In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, it was held that gratuitous or permissive stay does not create a title.

S.D. Bandi v. KSRTC and Lok Prahari v. State of U.P. regarding the duty to vacate public premises post-entitlement.

The Court observed that the Appellant was neither a government servant nor an authorized allottee, but rather the son of a retired employee who failed to vacate the premises.

The Court reasoned that government accommodation is a service facility, not a permanent right; once the service ends, the occupation becomes unauthorized.

The Court rejected the claim for specific performance based on rule of equity, noting that the State cannot be compelled to frame schemes to sell its housing stock to employees in perpetuity.

It found that the Appellant's possession was that of a "rank trespasser."

The court highlighted that public interest—specifically the redevelopment of healthcare infrastructure—outweighed the private interest of unauthorized occupants.

The suit was also found procedurally defective for failing to join the actual beneficiaries and for lack of statutory notice.

It held that unauthorized occupation of government quarters is a "public menace" that deprives eligible servants of resources.

The Court vacated all interim relief and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000 on the Appellant for pursuing a frivolous and "wholly voracious" litigation that obstructed public works since 2014.