A Delhi Court has ruled that Aam Aadmi Party MP Raghav Chadha does not possess an inherent right to retain the government bungalow following the cancellation of its allotment and withdrawal of the privilege.

Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik of Patiala House Courts has lifted an interim order issued on April 18, which had directed the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to refrain from evicting Chadha from the government bungalow without due legal process, reported Livelaw.

The court stated, “The plaintiff (Raghav Chadha) cannot assert that he possesses an absolute entitlement to occupy the accommodation throughout his entire term as a Member of the Rajya Sabha. The allocation of government housing is simply a privilege granted to the plaintiff, and he does not have an inherent right to maintain occupancy even after the allocation has been rescinded.”

This ruling was made in response to a review application filed by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, which sought the recall of the interim order. The Secretariat argued that the court had granted interim relief to Chadha without adhering to the procedure outlined in Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which necessitates a hearing for both parties before granting leave under the provision.

In vacating the interim order, the court rejected Chadha’s argument that government housing allocated to a Member of Parliament could not be revoked under any circumstances during the MP’s entire tenure.

The court emphasized that Section 80(2) of the CPC necessitates that the court hear both sides and consider the nature of the suit and the urgency of the matter before making a final decision. Until a final order is issued granting the application, any irregularity in filing the suit persists.

The court noted that it had issued notice of the application under Section 80(2) of the CPC to the Secretariat while simultaneously granting interim relief to Chadha, preventing his eviction from the accommodation without due legal process.

The court observed that Chadha had failed to demonstrate any need for urgent or immediate relief that would justify leave being granted under Section 80(2) of the CPC.

Consequently, the court recalled the order dated April 18, 2023, and vacated the interim order. It also returned the complaint for presentation once the requirements of Section 80(1) of the CPC are met.

Advocate Prashant Manchanda represented the plaintiff, while CGSC Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra (Standing Counsel, Rajya Sabha) along with Advocates Sugam Kumar Jha, Osheen Verma, Kritika Sharma, Harsh Raj, and Raghav Tandon appeared for the defendant.