Delhi High Court
Raj Pal vs Union Of India Through Estate ... on 20 January, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 17.01.2017.
Judgment delivered on : 20.01.2017.
+ W.P.(C) 5671/2016 & C.M. No.24373/2016
RAJ PAL
..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Mukesh Anand, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ESTATE OFFICER
..... Respondent
Through Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC,
.T.P.Singh and Mr. Sahaj Garg,
Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 The petitioner before this Court is Raj Pal. He is the owner of
Government Quarter No. S-4/876, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. He is stated to
be working as Assistant Compiler in the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India. He was allotted the aforenoted accommodation by the
Government of India. He is still occupying the said property.
2 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District
Judge dated 12.05.2016 which had endorsed the findings returned by the
Estate Officer dated 17.07.2015 vide which the petitioner had been directed
to vacate the aforenoted quarter.
3 The impugned order (12.05.2016) had held that pursuant to an
inspection carried out on 10.11.2012, it had revealed that the original allottee
had sub-let this quarter; he was not the occupant of the quarter at the time of
the aforenoted inspection. Since this was a violation of the Rules under
which quarter had been allotted to him, a notice under Section 4 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as the said Act) was served upon the petitioner. After evidence
had been led before the Estate Officer, an order had been passed by the
Estate Officer under Section 5 of the said Act. The appeal filed by the
petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act stood dismissed by the impugned
order.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is
based on surmises and conjectures; the main reason for holding out that the
petitioner had sub-let the quarter was for the reason that at the time of
inspection, one Vikas was found occupying the Government quarter and
although he had introduced himself as the son of the allottee yet the
signatures taken on that inspection report did not match with the signatures
of Vikas when he appeared before the Court to append his signatures. This
non-matching of the signature had led the Estate Officer to draw a
conclusion that this Vikas was an impersonator; he was not the son of the
petitioner. Another reason which had led the Appellate Court to hold that
the findings of the Estate Officer were correct was for the reason that when
Vikas was asked as to where he was working, he stated that his work shop is
in Madan Gir whereas his business card filed before the Court revealed his
car shop center was at Masood Pur, Vasant Kunj. This also reflects upon the
dubious status of Vikas. The telephone number provided by the
occupant/occupier (purported to be Vikas) was also different from the
telephone number of the actual Vikas. Vikas had disclosed the name of his
mother as Munni Devi where the CGHS card of the applicant shows that his
wife is Beena Devi and not Munni Devi. It was for all the aforenoted reasons
that the learned District Judge as also the Estate Officer had held that the
petitioner is an illegal occupant in the said quarter; it was a case of sub-
letting.
5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this finding is wholly
erroneous and illegal. He has drawn attention of this Court to the driving
license of Vikas wherein the signatures of Vikas appear on the said
document. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a
scrutiny of this signature of Vikas (on this document) clearly shows that the
manner of appending these signatures (by Vikas) matches the signature
given by the person who had signed the inspection report. His further
submission is that although the alleged Vikas (present at the time of
inspection) had stated that he was working in a shop at Madan Gir and the
business card of Vikas (in Court) evidenced that he has a shop at Masood
Pur yet doing the work of car dealing and Madan Gir and Masood Pur being
at a distance of 3-4 kilometers; the work at Masood Pur had also made Vikas
to visit shop at Madan Gir and this was in connection with his car dealing
business. On the third count, the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the name disclosed by the petitioner of his mother as Munni
Devi is similar to the sound Beena Devi and it was probably due to a mistake
in hearing that the name of Munni Devi was noted as the wife of petitioner
whereas her real name is Beena Devi. Additional submission of the
petitioner being that the gas consumer card number mentioned in the
inspection report i.e. B.P. No.10008934 is number of the petitioner himself;
moreover the mobile number mentioned in column 13 (9958123884) is also
the mobile number of the petitioner and had Vikas been a sub-lettee and not
the son of the petitioner, he would not have known the mobile number of the
petitioner.
6 These arguments have been countered. Learned counsel for the
respondent submits that a fact finding has been returned by the two courts
below and this Court in its writ jurisdiction may not re-appreciate these fact
findings. It is pointed out that the order suffers from no infirmity. He has
placed reliance upon a judgment of another Bench of this Court in 2003 (66)
DRJ 509 Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India and Others as also a judgment of the
Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.5879/2007 New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and Another. Submission being that
a plain readings of Section 6 of the said Act shows that the entire burden is
upon the sub-lettee; it was for the petitioner to have proved that it is not a
case of sub-letting which he has failed to do.
7 Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.
8 This Court notes that the impugned order is premised on the
submissions which have already been noted supra. The impugned order in
the first instance had noted that in the inspection report (10.11.2012), the
signatures of the occupant Vikas had been appended in the last column. A
perusal of this signature by the naked eye when matched with the signatures
appended of Vikas on the driving license shows that both the signatures
match; they do not appear to be mis-matched. The manner in which 'V' has
been written followed by 'K' where there is a dis-joinder in the alphabet as
also the continuation of the last alphabet 'S' does appear to be similar in both
the two documents. The driving license is dated 21.11.2005; it is valid up to
20.11.2025. This driving license was in existence prior in time to the
inspection. It is also not the case of the respondent that this driving license is
fabricated. Thus this Court notes that the signatures of Vikas as appearing in
the inspection report may not have matched the signatures of Vikas in Court
yet this by itself could not have been a conclusive reason to hold that these
persons are two different persons especially when this Court notes that the
signatures of Vikas appearing on his driving license (a document in existence
prior to the date of inspection) do match. If the signatures of the same
person on three documents are examined and two documents match and two
do not match, it would not be correct on the part of the Department to arrive
at a conclusion that this is an established case of sub-letting.
9 Record of the Department has been requisitioned. It has been perused.
Note-II has been highlighted. In the course of inquiry, it had been noted that
the allottee had appeared before the Deputy Director on 01.08.2013 and had
appended his signatures for the purpose of verification; the Inquiry Officer
has noted that the signatures of Vikas do not tally with the signatures given
by the purported imposter in the inspection report. These specimen
signatures of Vikas taken before the Inquiry Officer have been perused.
They no doubt do not match with the signatures given in the inspector report
but at the cost of repetition, there are three signatures which are before this
Court and which when scrutinized by the naked eye, show that two
signatures of Vikas match with one another and two do not. This Court notes
that the impugned order has been largely premised on the signatures of
Vikas. Benefit of doubt has to be given on this score to the allottee. This
Court notes that the impugned order has largely been premised on these
signatures of Vikas.
10 The other corroborative evidence which has been noted by the
Department relate to other informations which were purported to have been
disclosed by Vikas in this inspection report. In this inspection report, he had
in column 10 disclosed that he works in a shop at Madan Gir. The business
card produced before the Estate Officer disclosed that he was working at a
shop in Masood Pur and doing business of car dealing. This fact finding has
been recorded by the two courts below. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that Madan Gir and Masood Pur are at a distance of
3-4 kilometers and the car dealing work which Vikas was carrying out from
the shop at Masood Pur also made him to travel to shops in Madan Gir is an
argument which cannot be overlooked especially keeping in view the fact
that admittedly the said Vikas was working at a shop and moreover the
distance of Madan Gir and Masood Pur is also not really far.
11 The person found at the spot (allegedly Vikas) had disclosed the name
of his mother as Munni Devi whereas her real name was Beena Devi. The
submission that this could be a case of mis-hearing is noted and for which
this Court is of the view that a benefit of doubt be accorded to the petitioner.
12 This Court also notes that the gas consumer number disclosed in
column 9 (B.P. No.10008934) was of the original allottee namely Raj Pal.
The mobile number disclosed in column No. 13 by the said Vikas was also
the mobile phone number of Raj Pal; meaning thereby that if a stranger was
found at the spot, he could not have known the mobile number of the original
allottee and this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has
force.
13 This Court notes that a verbatim conclusion arrived at by the two
courts below. A harsh punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner;
unless and until, it was conclusively established by the Department that it is
a clear case of subletting, the petitioner could not have been asked to vacate
the premises. This Court notes that the findings of the Estate Officer which
have been endorsed by the impugned order do not make out a clear case of
sub-letting. The preponderance of probabilities had not been weighed by the
courts below correctly; evidence has not been appreciated in the correct
perspective. This Court is of the view that a clear case of sub-letting was not
made out; impugned order is perverse.
14 The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
would have no application to the facts of the instant case. There were
positive fact findings returned in those cases. In the instant case, the findings
endorsed in the impugned order are parrot like recitation of the order passed
by the Estate Officer. Although it is true that before the Estate Officer, the
driving license of Vikas was not made available yet the fact that it has been
brought on record before this Court and the same not having been challenged
as a fabricated document, this Court is of the view that cognizance of the
document has to be taken and noting the above narration, the impugned order
is set aside.
15 Writ petition disposed of.
16 Record of the Department be returned.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JANUARY 20, 2017
A
