Delhi District Court
Sh. Suresh Kumar vs Union Of India on 28 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
PPA No. 121/2014 (Old PPA No. 21/14)
CNR No.DLND010064042014
Sh. Suresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Azad Singh
R/o Qtr No. N628, Sector8
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
...... Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Director General of I.T.B.P.
Ministry of Home Affairs
Govt. of India
Block2, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2. Estate OfficerCumDIG (Admn.)
Block2, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Ravinder Gupta
Inspecting Officer
Govt. of India
Directorate of Estate
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
..... Respondents
Date of filing : 21.04.2014
Date of arguments : 28.11.2019
Daet of Judgment : 28.11.2019
PPA No. 121/14
Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 1 of 11
J U D G M E N T :
1. Appeal U/s 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, hereafter referred to as 'the said Act' is preferred against the eviction order dated 26.03.2014 passed by Estate Officer, hereafter referred to as 'the impugned order', in respect of the public premises i.e. Quarter No. 628, BlockN, TypeII, Sector8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, hereafter referred to as 'the premises in question'.
2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellant joined the ITBP in the year 1996 and on 20.07.2004, he was allotted the premises in question. On 18.12.2011, an inspection was conducted by the concerned department of the respondent and it was reported that the premises in question was sublet by the appellant to one Ms. Sonam Gyaltson. Thereafter, an order dated 27.08.2012 was passed by the Estate Officer directing the appellant to vacate the premises in question. The appellant preferred an appeal on 25.09.2012 against the said order dated 27.08.2012. Vide letter dated 30.08.2012, appellant requested the respondent to quash the said order dated 27.08.2012. On 07.09.2012, an enquiry was conducted by the department whereby it was proved that the premises in question was sublet by the appellant from time to time. Father of the appellant also filed a representation/complaint dated 17.12.2011 to the Superintendent PPA No. 121/14 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 2 of 11 of Police, Rohtak, Haryana against the illegal act of the officials regarding illegal acquirement of mutual land. The appellant vide his letter dated 25.06.2012 made a request to the respondent to permit him to produce himself as a witness to prove his defence. On 03.12.2012, a non speaking order was passed by the respondents against which the appellant preferred an appeal bearing No. 29/12. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2014 being not maintainable as no order has been passed by the Estate Officer under Section 8 of PP Act. No notice, which is mandatory, under Section 4 of the PP Act has been issued to the appellant. Thereafter, the Estate Officer passed the impugned order dated 26.03.2014.
3. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the grounds among others that the impugned order is bad in law, unreasoned and nonspeaking and also not sustainable in law because the same is passed in mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence on record. No notice u/s 4 of the said Act was ever issued to the appellant by the Estate Officer. The Inspection team did not record the statement of Sh. Gyaltson and his wife Smt. Sonan Gyaltson or that it failed to enquire about the whereabouts of the appellant from the neighbours.
4. The respondent Nos. 1&2 have filed reply to the appeal u/s 9 of PPA and stated that during the inspection of the premises in question on 18.12.2011, the premises in question was found occupied by PPA No. 121/14 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 3 of 11 Ms. Sonam and Mr. Mundup Gyaltson. At the time of inspection neither the appellant nor his wife were present in the premises in question. Hence, an inquiry was ordered. Vide Memo dated 23.04.2012, the appellant was given the opportunity to file his reply. During the course of inquiry, neither the identification of Ms. Sonam and Sh. Mundup Gyaltson was disclosed by the appellant nor any documents of temple authority were produced. No person by the name of Mundup Gyaltson approached the respondent. The appellant failed to give any satisfactory reply. It was found that the appellant has sublet the premises in question to an unauthorized person in contravention of provisions contained in SR 317B20 of the Allotment of Government Residences Rules (General Pool in Delhi), 1963. Consequently Order No. 1046 dated 27.08.2012 was issued. The appeals of the appellant dated 30.08.2012 and 25.09.2012 were found baseless and were accordingly rejected by the competent authority. In parawise reply, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated that vide order dt. 26.03.2014, the appellant was directed to vacate the premises in question and also pay damage charges from the date of cancellation of allotment i.e. w.e.f. 27.08.2012. Due opportunity was provided to the appellant before passing of the impugned order. The appellant has failed to produce sufficient proof of his not subletting the premises in question. The inspection team obtained the details of passport of Sh. Mundup Gyalson who was found present at the time of the inspection on 18.12.2011 at 10.08 am with his wife and daughter at the premises in question. The other averments made in the present appeal PPA No. 121/14 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 4 of 11 against the respondents have been denied by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in their reply to the appeal.
5. The respondent No. 3 has also filed reply to the present petition u/s 9 of the said Act and raised the preliminary objection that the present appeal is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as the premises in question being ITBP Pool Quarter is not related to the respondent No.3. However, in the reply, the respondent No. 3 stated that respondent No.3 along with his team visited the premises and found that the appellant had sublet the premises in question to Sh. Mundup Gyaltson and Smt. Sonam Mundup. The impugned order is correctly passed by the Estate Officer as the appellant had sublet the premises in question.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for appellant and Ld. Counsel for the respondents and have perused the written arguments filed on record and the said impugned order and also records of the appeal file as well as the Estate Officer file carefully.
7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the there is no document to prove that any person is residing in the premises in question. No notice u/s 4 & 8 of the PP Act was issued to the appellant, hence, provisions of Section 4 and 8 of PP Act were not complied with by the respondent. Nothing has been done and there is no evidence in this case against the appellant. The proceedings before the Estate Officer are the quasi judicial proceedings and for the purpose of holding an inquiry under the Act, the Estate Officer has the same powers as are PPA No. 121/14 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 5 of 11 vested in a civil court under CPC, which have not been followed by the Estate Officer at the time of hearing of the case of the appellant regarding subletting of the premises in question. Therefore, the impugned order is a nonspeaking and blanket order. Ld. Counsel for the appellant in support of his case, relied upon the judgment in the case of Nirmal Kanta (dead) through LRs versus Ashok Kumar & Anr. (2008) 7 SCC 722.
8. Ld. counsel for the respondents argued that the inspection of the premises in question was conducted on 18.12.2011 and Ms. Sonam and Mr. Mundup Gyaltson were found in the premises. Whereas, the appellant and his family members were not found at the premises at that time. As per the inspection report, a case of subletting of the premises in question was found against the appellant. During hearings before the Estate Officer, the appellant failed to give satisfactory reply about subletting of the premises in question. The appellant failed to produce any sufficient proof of his not subletting the premises in question.
9. The Estate Officer is to discharge quasijudicial functions at the time of holding an inquiry before passing an eviction order or the rent or damages payable by the occupant for the premises in question. In M/s Blaze and Central (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and others AIR 1980 Karnataka 186, it was held as under :
"13 ..................... The Estate Officer must hold an enquiry as required under S. 4 of the Act, read with the Public Premises (Eviction of PPA No. 121/14 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 6 of 11 Unauthorized Occupants) Rules 1971. R. 5 of the Rules provides that the Estate Officer shall record the summary of the evidence tendered before him and the summary of such evidence and any relevant documents filed before him shall form part of the record of the proceedings. Exercise of the power under the Act is undoubtedly quasijudicial. The petitioner has a right to be heard before the Estate Officer and if the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right to know the evidence of the opposite side. The petitioner must therefore be told what evidence has been given or what statements have been made by the opposite side. In other words, to put it shortly, the petitioner must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict the statements recorded or the evidence ......................................"
10. Vide the impugned order dt. 26.03.2014, the Estate Officer observed that on the basis of the inquiry, the appellant was found guilty of subletting the premises in question which was in his possession w.e.f. 20.07.2004 and the appellant was further directed to vacate and hand over the full vacant possession of the accommodation to CPWD under intimation of Dte. Genl. vide order No. VI16011/6/2006/Adm1046 dt.27.08.2012. The representation dt.30.08.2012 of the appellant was considered and rejected by the competent authority, which was conveyed to him vide memo dt.03.12.2012. Thereafter, the appeal bearing PPA No. 29/12 filed by the appellant challenging the order dt. 27.08.2012 and PPA No. 121/14 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 7 of 11 Order No. 1447 dt. 03.12.2012 passed by the ITBP, was dismissed vide order dt.03.01.2014 as no order has been passed under the said Act. Thereafter, Ld. Estate Officer again directed the appellant to vacate the premises in question with immediate effect and also directed to pay the damage charges from the date of cancellation of allotment (i.e. w.e.f. 27.08.2012) as per prescribed rates of license fees revised from time to time.
11. Perusal of record and also the proceedings of the Estate Officer in the present case reveals that Smt. Kajol, in her complaint addressed to DIG(Adm), ISBT stated that she was residing in the premises in question on rent of Rs.5500/ pm and in the said statement, she made allegations against the appellant and his family members of harassment to the persons who were allowed by him to use the premises on rent. The conversation of Smt. Kajol on telephone was translated in Hindi, which reveals that if need arises, the information / statement given on phone can also be given by her in the office or phone. However, the appellant was not given an opportunity to defend his case regarding the allegations of subletting made by Smt. Kajol. As per inspection report, the inspection was carried on 18.12.2011 and Ms. Sonam and Mr. Gyaltson, travel agent were found as occupants of the premises in question. In the said report also it is mentioned that "subletting is suspected. Occupant not disclosed any details of allottee". The inspection report reveals that there is no signature against the column of PPA No. 121/14 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 8 of 11 neighbour and local CPWD official in the said inspection report. As per copy of the Certificate dt.25.06.2012 of M. Gyaltson placed on page No. 117 in the file No.VI16011/06/2006/Admn of the respondents, he stated that he is having family relations with the appellant herein and he used to come to the appellant's house on humanity grounds. He also stated that he was not living there and he only used to come sometimes to the premises in question to meet the appellant.
12. As per the letter dt.12.04.2012 of the officer of respondent placed in the said file No. VI16011/06/2006/Admn at page No. 53, the premises in question was got inspected and no subletting of the premises was found. As per the copy of the Certificate (Praman Patra) placed in the said file at page No. 79, one Balbir Singh, neighbour stated that he is residing the upper floor of the premises in question and the appellant along with his family members is residing since its allotment to him. Copy of the letter dt.13.05.2012 issued by Residents Welfare Association for quarter No. N263 to 1276 at Sector8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi placed in the said file at page No. 281 reveals that the appellant was residing at the premises in question and no person was residing with him in the capacity of tenant at the premises. The daughter of the appellant has been studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya at Sector8, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and the said Residents Welfare Association also mentioned in the said letter that it appears to them that someone made a complaint against the appellant with mala fide intention. As per the PPA No. 121/14 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 9 of 11 inquiry proceedings of the department concerned, copy of which is placed in the aforesaid file from page No. 87 to 89, it reveals that the committee checked and premises on 18.04.2012 in which a girl, aged about 7 - 8 years in the name of Shruti was found residing there who said the name of her father as Suresh Kumar. It is also mentioned in the said proceedings that after inquiry, Leh Police Deputy Superintendent informed that Mundup Gyaltson was actually residing at Leh address. The appellant filed the copies of documents i.e. school certificates / documents, medical documents etc. of the appellant as well as his family before the department / respondent. The due procedure for issuance of notices u/s 4 & 8 of the said Act was also not followed.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussion made above and the documents placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Estate Officer did not examine the members of inspecting team regarding the subletting of the premises in question by the appellant. The inspection report dt.18.12.2011 is not sufficient for cancellation of the allotment. The respondents did not choose to examine witnesses. Further, the allotment does not bar or prohibit presence of visitors. It is settled proposition of law that even quasi judicial proceedings also requires the principle of natural justice i.e. the parties appearing before it should be given reasonable and appropriate opportunity to be heard before deciding the issue. The appellant in this case has not been given proper opportunity to be heard and lead PPA No. 121/14 Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 10 of 11 evidence. 'The impugned order' by itself is also a nonspeaking, passed without due application of mind and in a mechanical manner. Thus, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dt.26.03.2014 is set aside with the direction to remand back the case to the Estate Officer to hear the matter afresh giving proper opportunity to the appellantherein and to lead his evidence with due procedure and in accordance with law and pass a speaking order. The parties as well as counsel are directed to appear before the Estate Officer on 13.12.2019. The Estate Officer record along with the copy of this Judgment be sent back to the Estate Officer and thereafter the present appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by YASHWANT YASHWANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2019.11.28
17:06:51 +0530
Announced in the open Court (YASHWANT KUMAR)
on 28th day of November, 2019 District & Sessions Judge, PHC,
New Delhi
PPA No. 121/14
Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Page No. 11 of 11