Delhi High Court
Estate Officer And Anr. vs Beena Rani on 31 October, 2017
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 31st October, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10492/2016 & CM No.41143/2016
ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal CGSC with Mr.
Harvesh Kumar, Astt. Director and
Mr. Umesh Kumar, ASO.
versus
BEENA RANI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 27th February,
2016 whereby the learned District Judge has allowed the respondent's
appeal against the eviction order dated 13th July, 2015 passed by the Estate
Officer.
2. The respondent, working as a Private Secretary in the Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, has been allotted government
quarter No.8, Block No.124, Sector-1, M.B. Road, New Delhi.
3. On 14th April, 2012, an inspection was carried out in respect of the
aforesaid quarter when the respondent was not there. At the time of the
inspection, Pushpa Rawat was present in the house. It is alleged that Pushpa
Rawat claimed herself to be a tenant. Suspecting sub-letting, show cause
notice dated 12th June, 2012 was issued to the respondent to show cause why
the allotment be not cancelled. The respondent replied to the show cause
stating that she was in the office at the time of inspection and her friend and
some guests were present in the quarter and her brother was entertaining
them. The respondent also submitted the photocopy of her Voter ID card as
well as photocopy of report card of Ayush Rawat, son of Pushpa Rawat as a
proof that Pushpa Rawat was not residing in the subject premises. On 11 th
January, 2013, the respondent's allotment was cancelled against which the
respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellant Authority which was
rejected on 08th May, 2014. The proceedings under the Public Premises Act,
1971 were initiated against the respondent which resulted in the eviction
order dated 13th July, 2015. The respondent preferred an appeal before the
District Judge which was allowed.
4. The learned District Judge drew an adverse inference against the
petitioner for not cross-examining the defence witness, Ms. Nutan Baskey.
The findings of the learned District Judge are reproduced here under:-
"On a consideration of the entire available record and rival
pleas submitted, it is essential to observe that the defence witness
of the appellant herein Smt. Nutan Baskey, the immediate
neighbor of the appellant has not been cross examined by the
department despite ample opportunities granted and her
statement to the effect that the premises were not sublet by the
appellant thus has remained unchallenged. The observations
made in the order to the effect that the statement made by Smt.
Nutan Baskey has no relevance as they did not co-relate in the
matter in the circumstances cannot be accepted in as much as the
department despite having opportunity for cross examination of
Smt. Nutan Baskey did not cross examine her, and furthermore,
the inspection conducted by Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sh. Ravinder
Gupta on 14.04.2012 by persons whose designation are also not
mentioned in the inspection note dated 14.04.2012, which states
to the effect that it was „suspected‟ that person found at the spot
were tenants continues to remain under the realm of suspicion
alone in as much as nothing prevented the department from
examining Smt. Pushpa Rawat on oath in the proceedings before
the Estate Officer and it cannot be over looked that had there
been no bonafides in the presence of Smt. Pushpa Rawat, she
would not have produced her election identity card showing the
address different from that of the allotted accommodation.
Taking the totality of the circumstances of the case into
account, it is held that apart from a mere suspicion that has been
raised against the appellant of having sublet the public premises,
the department has been unable to establish the said suspicion
therein as the department has not chosen to cross examine the
immediate neighbor of the appellant who was produced by the
appellant in the witness box in support of her plea that she has
not sublet the premises and thus the impugned order dated
13.07.2015 bearing No.EC/93/AD/LIT/2014TC- (Sub) and the
cause notice dated 27.05.2014 bearing No.EC/93/AD/LIT/2014T-
C-Subletting are set aside. The appeal PPA No.14/15 is thus
allowed and records thereof be consigned to the Record Room."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the original record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relies on the inspection report
which records that Pushpa Rawat stated herself to be a tenant. Inspection
report has been perused from the record produced. The entire inspection
report except para 15 is filled up in English. Para-15 is filled up in Hindi and
it appears to be in a different handwriting. Para-16 is written with different
pen and in a different handwriting.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the non cross-
examining of defence witness is of no consequence. The respondent
produced her neighbour as a defence witness who deposed on oath that the
respondent is staying in the allotted accommodation and it has not been
sublet. The statement dated 24th November, 2013 of the defence witness is
reproduced hereunder:-
"Statement of Smt. Nutam Baskey W/o Late Jonathan Baskey,
R/o 124/9, Sec-I, Pushp Vihar, N. Delhi.
On SA
I know Smt. Beena Rani since I shifted to my above house in
2010. I usually visit the house of Smt. Beena and she also visits my
house occasionally. I have never seen anybody in the house of Beena.
I have no idea whether any relative comes to her house. I have seen
the brother and sister of Smt. Beena. Since the date I have shifted to
my house I have noticed that Smt. Beena resides there in her house.
To my knowledge Smt. Beena has not given his house on rent. I have
seen the statement given by me on 29/9/2014 and same is Ex. as mark
„A‟. I am giving this statement without any coercion or influence."
7. This Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned
order passed by the learned District Judge. The writ petition as well as
pending application are, therefore, dismissed.
OCTOBER 31, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak
