TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether clauses 3 and 4 of the Allotment of Government Residence (General Pool), New Delhi Rules, 1963 could be applied to recover market-rate licence fee or damages from a Government servant who owned a house only as a joint owner but had no possession or right to immediate possession because the house was lawfully let out prior to the amendment.
Analysis: Clause 3 required surrender of Government residence only where the officer owned a house or a family member owned a house so as to enable the officer to shift from Government accommodation to his own house. The rule was not intended to operate where the officer, though an owner, could not actually occupy the house or obtain immediate possession because a valid lease created before the amendment subsisted throughout the relevant period. In such circumstances, the officer could not be compelled to do what was impossible, and the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia applied. Since the tenancy predated the amendment and continued during the entire period for which recovery was made, clauses 3 and 4 could not justify treating the appellant as liable for market-rate damages.
Conclusion: The levy and collection of excess licence fee or damages was not sustainable, and refund was due to the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
