Karambir Singh vs Union Of India
2010 Latest Caselaw 564 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 3364/2007         Date of Decision: 02nd February, 2010.
KARAMBIR SINGH                                 ..... Petitioner
                         Through     Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Adv. with
                                     Mr. S.N. Pandey and Ms. Vandana
                                     Mishra, Advocates.
                  versus
UOI                                               ..... Respondent
                         Through     Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. R. Upadhyay,
                                     Avocates.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
                              ORDER

%

Learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order dated 25th

April, 2007 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner under Section 9 of the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act) and upheld the order passed by the Estate Officer.

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned

orders are perverse as the inspection report was not furnished, has been

misread and is per se unbelievable. He further states that the petitioner had

taken permission from the respondent to share the accommodation with one

Smt. P.S. Malini, UDC in CPWD w.e.f. 1st April, 2001 to 31st August, 2001. He

relies upon telephone bills of telephone No.6183809 in the name of Ms. S.N.

Ramamani with the address Sector-8/357, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

W.P.(C) No.3364/2007 Page 1

3. A writ Court is not an appellate Court that can examine facts as an

appellate Court. This Court is concerned with the decision making process and

not merits. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioner have been duly

considered and examined in the detailed order dated 25th April, 2007 passed

by the Additional District Judge. With regard to the inspection report and

contents thereof, learned Additional District Judge has referred to statement

dated 16th December, 2002 made by the petitioner before the departmental

appellate authority against the order of cancellation of allotment dated 6th

June, 2002. The relevant portion of the statement of the petitioner recorded

by the appellate authority reads as under:-

"I, Sh. Karambir Singh.......... The contents of the inspection report were revealed to me and I presented my case accordingly. I belong to Sonepat (Haryana). At the time of inspection neither I nor any of our family members were present as we were constructing our own house at Sonepat. My wife have been visiting Sonepat otherwise she was residing with me. My children with my parents at Sonipat. Instead the persons found at the time of inspection were friends of my friend Sh. Pillai, who is also working in Delhi. They were staying at Munirka and the only stayed with me 5-6 days. I am not aware of the telephone number at my allotted qr. (quarter) installed by Mrs. Rama Mani. I have a gas connection in the allotted qr.

W.P.(C) No.3364/2007 Page 2 (quarter) is since April, 2002. I have got my two children, Ms. Kiran and Mr. Sandeep Nagar admitted in Kerala School, R.K. Puram, Sector-8 from April, 2002. They were studying in 4th and 9th class. Now I have constructed my house at Sonepat and I have shifted my family in Delhi. Now, I have also got telephone connectin No.26191051 installed at my allotted qr. (quarter) in January, 2002. I have nothing else to say.

4. Thereafter, on 12th September, 2003, PW-1, Mr. J.V. Garg, Additional

Director of Estate was examined by the Estate Officer and the petitioner was

given opportunity to cross examine him. Mr. J.V. Garg was a member of the

inspection team which had conducted inspection of the property on 24th July,

2001. The petitioner declined to cross examine Mr. J.V. Garg, PW-1 on 12th

September, 2003. Thereafter, the Estate Officer passed the eviction order

dated 22nd September, 2003. The contention of the petitioner that he was not

permitted to examine the inspection report is incorrect. The petitioner was

shown the report and he had read and understood the same as stated by him

in his statement dated 16th December, 2002. It is not a case

of the petitioner that he had moved an application

W.P.(C) No.3364/2007 Page 3 asking for a copy of the inspection report during the proceedings before the

Estate Officer. No prejudice is pleaded and shown.

5. The stand of the petitioner that he had applied for permission for

occupation of the premises by Smt. P.S. Malini, UDC in CPWD w.e.f. 1st April,

2001 to 31st August, 2001, has been also dealt with and rejected by the

Additional District Judge on the ground that it is an afterthought and cover

up. In the statement dated 16th December, 2002, the petitioner did not take

the said stand and instead had stated that at the time of inspection, the

persons found in the said premises, were friends of his friend, Mr. Pillai. He

had further stated that they were staying in Munirka and they had stayed

with him for 5-6 days. The findings given by the Additional District Judge are:-

"4.4 So far as the appellant's contention that he had not sublet the said premises but was only sharing the same with Smt. PS Malini, is concerned it is seen that in the first instance i.e. on receipt of show cause notice issued prior to cancellation of allotment, the appellant did not mention anything about the sharing of accommodation with Smt. Malini, in his reply filed before the Deputy Director of Estates. He simply stated he has been residing continuously in the said premises and refuted the allegations of sub-letting. Only after passing of order of cancellation, the appellant stated this fact in his appeal challenging the cancellation order dated

W.P.(C) No.3364/2007 Page 4 6.6.2002 before the Departmental Appellate Authority. It is also interesting to note that the appellant, in his statement made on 16.12.2002 before the Appellate Authority, as reproduced in para 4.3.3 (supra), stated that the persons found in the said premises at the time of inspection were friends of his friend Sh. Pillai. He further stated that they only stayed with him for 5-6 days, whereas before the Estate Officer and in this appeal, the appellant ha stated that he was sharing accommodation with Smt. PS Malini w.e.f. 01.04.2001 to 31.08.2001. Thus the appellant had been making contradictory statement at different stages.

Be that as it may. In view of the appellant's failure to establish that he was actually residing in the said premises, even if for a while, the appellant's plea that he had intimated about sharing of the said premises with Miss Malini, is accepted, the same leads to only one conclusion that only Miss Malini along with her family members was residing in the said premises. Appellant and his family members were not residing in the said premises."

6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon column 15 of the inspection

report under the heading 'any other information', which reads as under:-

"Allottee belongs to Sonepat. His wife and children lives in Sonepat. Allottee lives in Sonepat. However on Friday, Saturday and Sundays, allottee alongwith his family lives in this quarter (on holiday) Mrs. Rama Mani is Reader (Sanskrit) in Lal Bahadur Shastri Sanskrit

W.P.(C) No.3364/2007 Page 5 Vidya Peeth, Katwaria Sarai.

Full subletting suspected"

7. It is obvious that the said column reproduces the statement of the

persons, who were found to be in occupation and then records the finding of

the inspection team "Full subletting suspected". The said statement has been

considered by the Additional District Judge and it has been rightly held that

the said statement shows that the petitioner had in fact sub-let the premises.

The persons in occupation of the premises at the time of inspection, were

obviously trying to help the petitioner, when it was stated that the petitioner

on Friday, Saturday and Sundays, alongwith his family resides in the quarter.

The petitioner did not produce the said persons/occupants before the Estate

Officer. Even the persons, who were members of the inspection team, were

not cross-examined before the Estate Officer. The inspection team has

recorded that telephone No.6183809 in the name of Mrs. S.N. Ramamani was

found installed in the premises. It is accepted that this telephone number is in

the name of Mrs. S.N. Ramamani. Obviously, the inspection team would not

have recorded the said fact, without information being furnished or without

on spot verification. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the

W.P.(C) No.3364/2007 Page 6 contention of the petitioner, relying upon telephone bill in the name of Mrs.

S.N. Ramamani which is bearing a different address with due date 8th August,

2001. The documents produced by the petitioner in support of his contention

that he was also residing in the premises at the time of inspection have been

considered and rejected by the Additional District Judge, noticing that the said

documents pertain to period subsequent to the date of inspection, which was

conducted on 24th July, 2001. The petitioner had produced copy of gas

connection taken on 6th April, 2002, copy of telephone bill installed in his

name for the period 8th February, 2002 and copy of the receipts dated 7th

May, 2002 and 10th July, 2002, issued by the Kerala Education Society (Regd.).

CGHS card etc. produced by the petitioner and evidential value attached to

the same have also been considered by the Additional District Judge.

8. The present writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       FEBRUARY 02, 2010
       NA




W.P.(C) No.3364/2007                                                      Page 7