Mahinder Singh vs The Estate Officer And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 87 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. It is stated that an additional affidavit in terms of the order dated 8th November, 2004 has been filed. The said affidavit was not on record and during the hearing, a copy was made available for perusal. Let the original affidavit, as filed, be placed on record.

3. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the judgment dated 17th December, 2002 passed by Shri Raghubir Singh, Addl. District Judge dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order of eviction passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 dated 16th November, 2002. The order of eviction was passed on account of sub-letting of part of quarter No. T-12/2, Uri Enclave, Delhi Cantt. to one Havaldar Ramesh Malik and his family. The order of eviction also referred to some additional unauthorised construction. However, this ground had not been mentioned in the show cause notice issued.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.C. Singhal in support of writ petition submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate and evaluate the evidence and simply acted in a mechanical manner, ignoring the glaring infirmities and defects pointed out by the petitioner/ appellant in the inspection report. The plea of the petitioner is that premises had not been sublet to any Havaldar Ramesh Malik. Petitioner claims that he did not even know him. It is urged that inspection report has been fabricated, manipulated and additions made in the report after the signatures of the petitioner had been obtained. He submits that names of Havaldar Ramesh Malik and his family members had been added at Sr. Nos. (f) to (i) subsequently. He submits that examination of the report reveals interpolations and additions made. Similarly names had been added in para 11.

5. Counsel further submits that inspection which had been done was on the basis of an alleged complaint, the factum of making such a complaint is denied by the said Complainant. Counsel lastly urged that the so called disciplinary proceedings initiated against Havaldar Ramesh Malik, were a mere eyewash and only a reprimand had been administered to him. The proceedings were commenced and completed on the same day. Elaborating on the infirmities in the Inspection Report, he submits that there was no occasion to mention petitioner's parents in para 11 since their names and relationship had already appeared in para 10. Para 10 required the age, relationship with address of the persons living in the accommodation to be given. While in para 11, particulars of all those persons in occupation were required to be given. These should have included the sublettee/unauthorised occupants in contradistinction to the family. All these factors, as per petitioner, point towards interpolations in the report.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The veracity and authenticity of the report is sought to be assailed on account of what is termed as infirmities which demonstrate the alleged fabrication of the report. My predecessor has earlier noted that the alleged additions said to be made in the original report are in the same ink. These are also in the same hand. Discrepancies which are sought to be pointed out are that the names of alleged sub-lettee and his family members should not have been included in para 10 as it was intended for family members. Similarly, names of petitioner's parents should not have been shown as those occupying the accommodation in para 11 information regarding subletee/occupants. These cannot negate or destroy the credibility of the report. It is also to be noted that complete particulars of the family members of the sub-lettee have been mentioned. The report was signed by a civilian witness. Besides, it is also witnessed by a member of the police force.

7. This is a case where on inspection, sub-lettee and his family members had been found to be staying in part of the premises. Petitioner has chosen to opt for a complete denial. Petitioner in such an event once there presence is established cannot plead or raise any other pleas of the said occupants being home guest etc. Once their presence is established, subletting would be reasonably inferred.

8. Mr. Singhal next submits that petitioner's case is that there was no such person like Havaldar Ramesh Malik or his family members staying with him. Petitioner has similarly failed to aver any facts or ulterior motive on the part of respondents to fabricate evidence of non existing sub-lettee. Another factor which lends creditibility to the version of the respondents is that respondents proceeded with disciplinary proceedings against Havaldar Ramesh Malik. Mr. Singhal also attempted to underplay the same by stating that proceedings were conducted and finished on same day. These were summary proceedings in which sub-lettee Havaldar Ramesh Malik chose not to offer any explanation or defend the action. Accordingly, reprimand as deemed fit was given. Records had been called for and seen.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition or ground to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is dismissed.