The court's observation came while upholding a man's eviction from staff quarters of Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) here.
The court, while making the law clear to the man who was terminated from service in 2006 after working with IHBAS for nearly 26 years, said he could not show that he was an authorised occupant of the quarter.
"A person who has been terminated from service cannot be called a servant or employee, entitled to retain the quarters... No material is placed by the appellant (man) to show that he is an authorised occupant.
"He is no longer in service. The order of termination has attained finality. The quarters was allotted to him only as a condition of service," district judge A S Jayachandra said.
The court said once the service was terminated, he cannot claim to be in authorised occupation of the premises and there was no illegality in holding him as an unauthorised occupant.
It dismissed the man's appeal and upheld the order of an estate officer directing him to vacate the premises.
The man, who was working with IHBAS since 1980 and was alloted a quarter in the premises in 1982, challenged the ex- parte order of the estate officer in August last year directing him to vacate the house and declaring him an unauthorised occupant.
He argued that the eviction order was arbitrary and contrary to law and he was not given a chance to be heard.
The institution, however, contended that there was no error in the order and principles of natural justice have been followed. It claimed that the man was an unauthorised occupant as defined under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act.
It further said that he was terminated from service in 2006 which was upheld by the Supreme Court but he failed to vacate the quarter.
The court, however, noted that the estate officer had given an opportunity to the man to put forth his case and he had also given an explanation in which he had prayed to allow him to continue in occupation.
"After having perused the reply by the appellant to the Estate Officer, nothing could be gathered to hold that the appellant is in authorised occupation of the premises. Therefore, this court sees no illegality or perversity in the impugned order," the court said.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)