Karambir Singh vs Union Of India
2010 Latest Caselaw 4663 Del

                                                                                 #53
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA 148/2010 & CM APPL. 3796/2010

KARAMBIR SINGH                            ..... Appellant
                               Through: Mr. Mahabir Singh, Senior
                                        Advocate with Mr. Anand
                                        Padmanabhan, Mr. Prithvi
                                        Raj B.N. and Mr. Plato Aristotle,
                                        Advocates.

                      versus

UNION OF INDIA                            ..... Respondent
                               Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate.


%                                     Date of Decision: 04th October, 2010

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.


                       JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment and order dated 02nd February, 2010 passed in W.P.(C)

No.3364/2007 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the

appellant's writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-. It is pertinent to

mention that by way of the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant had

challenged the order dated 25th April, 2007 passed by the Additional

District Judge dismissing his appeal under Section 9 of the Public

Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and

upholding the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer.

2. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant

submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the

appellant had given prior intimation to the department regarding short

term stay of Smt. P.S. Malini. He further submitted that the Courts

below wrongly held that the appellant could not take the plea of sharing

of premises. In this connection, learned senior counsel drew our

attention to S R 317-B-20 which provides that with prior intimation to

the Estate Officer, an allottee of a Government accommodation can

share his official residence with some other employee of the Central

Government. Mr. Singh further pointed out that the appellant had filed

a prior application dated 19th March, 2001 regarding sharing of the

accommodation with the Directorate of Estates.

3. Having perused the papers, we deem it appropriate to reproduce

the relevant portion of the Inspection Report dated 24th July, 2001:

       "                   Government of India
                           Directorate of Estates
                           INSPECTION REPORT

       (A) PARTICULARS OF INSPECTION

       1.   Date of Inspection:              24.7.2001
       2.   Time of Inspection:              3.15 P.M.
       3.   Name of Inspecting Officers:     J.B. Garg & B.J. Jha
       4.   Name of Colony:                  R.K. Puram
       5.   Quarter no. & Type:              S-VIII/1191





        (B) INSPECTING REPORT

       1. Name, Designation and name
           of Office of the Allottee as
           confirmed at the Time        Karambir Singh Nagar, P.A.
          of inspection.                M.O. Railway.

       2. Name of the occupant as
          confirmed at the time of         Ramamani (cousin sister
          inspection & his relation        of Close friend, Srininvsan
          to the allottee                  Mrs. Malini D/o Ramamani
                                           Master Srinivasan Kr. 11/2
                                           Yrs S/o Rama Mani.

       3. Whether the allottee was
          found in the quarter at
          the time of inspection?
          If yes, his Identity Card              No.
          No. and details of his
          family. If no his
          whereabouts.

       4. Whether any other members
          of the allottee's family was           No.
          found . If yes, their details.

                xxx          xxx           xxx

       15.      Any other information

"Allottee belongs to Sonepat. His wife and Children lives in Sonepat. However on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, allottee along with his family lives in this quarter (on holiday) Mrs. Rama Mani is Reader (Sanskrit) in Lal Bahadur Shashtri Sanskrit Vidya Peeth, Katwaria Sarai."

16. Does the Inspecting Team suspect that the quarter is sublet?. If yes or no, "Full subletting ground on which the Team suspected"

have based their conclusion

(emphasis supplied)

5. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that it is apparent that

the entire premises was sublet by the appellant. There was no sharing

of the premises as the appellant was not found living in the said

premises.

6. In any event, the plea advanced by the appellant before us has

been considered from all spectrums by the learned Single Judge.

7. Moreover keeping in view the "contradictory stands" of the

appellant as found by the Additional District judge and by the learned

Single Judge, we are of the opinion that no ground for interference is

called for.

8. Consequently, the present appeal and pending application are

dismissed but with further costs of Rs.10,000/-.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

OCTOBER 04, 2010 js