Delhi High Court
Vijender Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 10 October, 2018
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9845/2018 & CM No.38364/2018 (for stay)
VIJENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Hardeep Kaur, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna & Mr. A. Kumar,
Advs. for R-1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 10.10.2018
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order [dated 17th July, 2018 in PP Appeal No.06/2018 (CNR
No.DLCT01-005007-2018) of the Court of District Judge (Headquarters),
acting as an Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)] of dismissal of
appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 3rd February, 2017
of the Directorate of Estates, Government of India of cancellation of
allotment of Quarter No.0473, Block-Z, Timarpur, New Delhi allotted to the
petitioner by virtue of his employment with the Government of India on the
ground of subletting by the petitioner of the said quarter, as well as the
subsequent order dated 14th March, 2018 of the Estate Officer, Government
of India in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Act, of eviction of the
petitioner from the said quarter.
2. The petitioner neither filed any reply to the notice under Section 4 of
the PP Act issued by the Estate Officer nor appeared before the Estate
Officer inspite of opportunity having been given. The Estate Officer thus
held that the petitioner had failed to prove that the ground on which
allotment had been cancelled was wrong or that the persons found in the
quarter at the time of surprise inspection thereof were his family members.
3. The District Judge has dismissed the appeal preferred by the
petitioner, reasoning that (i) as per record, at the time of inspection, one
Rakesh working as a clerk of some advocate in Karkardooma Courts and his
wife who is herself an advocate, were found occupying the quarter and
neither the petitioner nor any of his family members were found in the
quarter; (ii) though the said Rakesh initially informed the members of the
inspection team that he was the son of the petitioner but could not produce
any document in this regard; (iii) the said Rakesh then informed the
members of the inspection team that he was paying rent of Rs.7,000/- per
month to the petitioner; (iv) the petitioner did not file any reply or other
documents before the Estate Officer also and did not appear inspite of
service of notice of hearing; and, (v) since the petitioner had failed to show
anything in appeal also, to prove that Rakesh and his wife found in the
premises were relatives of the petitioner, no case for interfering with the
order of the Estate Officer was made out.
4. This petition came up first before this Court on 18 th September, 2018
when the counsel for the petitioner, under instructions from the petitioner
stated that Rakesh and his wife who are working in the Courts as court clerk
and advocate respectively, will be produced in one or two days. Accordingly, the
hearing was adjourned to 20th September, 2018. On 20th September, 2018, it
was stated that the wife of Rakesh was unwell and both of them will
be able to appear after one week. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to
today.
5. Today, Ms. Hardeep Kaur, Advocate appearing for the petitioner
states that wife of Rakesh has undergone an operation and thus Rakesh and
his wife have both not appeared. She states that summons be issued to the
said Rakesh and his wife. Alternatively, it is stated that commission be
issued to see who is in possession of the premises.
6. Admittedly Rakesh and his wife were found in the premises. The
petitioner, neither before the Directorate of Estates nor before the Estate
Officer nor before the District Judge has been able to explain the presence of
the said Rakesh and his wife and / or explain the absence of himself and his
family members from the quarter. It is not for this Court to commence an
investigation. The onus was on the petitioner to prove that the persons
found in the quarter allotted to the petitioner were not sublettees and which
the petitioner has failed to discharge inspite of opportunity before
Directorate of Estate, Estate Officer, District Judge and before this Court as
well.
7. No other argument has been urged.
8. No ground to interfere with the order of the District Judge acting as an
Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the PP Act, especially in exercise of
powers under Article 227, is made out.
Dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
OCTOBER 10, 2018/'gsr'..
