Delhi District Court
Sh. Ramesh Kumar vs The Admn. Officer (Estate) on 1 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL:
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (C) 10: DELHI.
PPA No. 8/2010
Sh. Ramesh Kumar
...Appellant
VERSUS
The Admn. Officer (Estate), MAMC & Anr.
...Defendant
Appeal presented on 22.09.2010
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant, working as Safai Karamchari in Maulana Azad Medical College & Associated Hospitals, New Delhi has been allotted government accommodation bearing Quarter No. 146/144, TypeII, Mirdard Lane, New Delhi. He has filed this appeal under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 aggrieved by order dated 23.08.2010 passed by the The Estate Officer, Central, New Delhi, Respondent No. 2. It is claimed that the appellant was in possession of allotted quarter with his family members. The wife of appellant was suffering from multiple diseases and therefore unable to do physical PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 1 of 9 work. The appellant, therefore, had called his married daughter Savitri with her husband Kameshwar to live with him and take care of her sick mother. They thus started living as family members of the appellant. Wife of appellant however died on 09.02.2009. It is averred that the Government quarter has never been sublet to any person wholly or partially. No notice or intimation of alleged subletting was given to the appellant. For the last 23 years even the rent is being deducted from his salary at enhanced rate of Rs. 5,800/ per month as against Rs. 1900/2300 per month.
2. On receiving notice for 23.08.2010, the appellant had appeared before respondent no. 2 and had filed reply totally denying the allegations of respondent no. 1 of subletting but it was not considered/believed by Estate Officer who passed the impugned order directing the vacation of appellant from his allotted Government accommodation. It is contended that the order has been passed by violating the principles of natural justice as opportunity to defend the case was not offered to him. Actually when the officials of Estate department had visited the quarter of appellant, Sh. Kameshwar had met them and informed his relationship with allottee but respondent no. 1 deliberately concealed this information PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 2 of 9 from respondent no. 2. It has thus been urged that order dated 23.08.2010 be set aside by admitting the appeal.
3. Respondent no. 1 has contested the appeal and filed detailed reply taking preliminary objections that appeal is barred by time as it has been filed after a month of passing of impugned order in the presence of appellant beyond the prescribed limitation of 12 days. There was no good or reasonable ground to condone the delay therefore appeal is liable to be dismissed. Moreover the appellant had, without challenging the cancellation of allotment of quarter had sought two months time to vacate the Government accommodation vide his letter dated 27.07.2010 so that he may shift to another house. He is therefore, estopped from challenging his eviction. On merits, respondent no. 1 has stated that the appellant has failed to prove that he was not in an unauthorised occupation of 'public premises'. He did not disclose the date of shifting of this daughter and soninlaw into the quarter. In the survey of 05.09.2006 conducted in MAMC campus appellant was found to have sublet the quarter to Mr. Pravez Iqbal. A memo dated 14.09.2006 was sent to him to seek explanation. Subsequently the allotment was cancelled on 29.11.2006 w.e.f. 05.09.2006 and imposed market rent of Rs. 5,802/ per month as PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 3 of 9 per rules. The appellant had offered to surrender the quarter vide his letters dated 13.12.2006 and 29.03.2007. He was asked to furnish no dues certificate by 24.05.2007 but he did not oblige. Another survey of the quarter was conducted on 01.12.2009 when one Naresh Kumar was found to be staying in it with his family on rent. The appellant himself has been residing at J1188, Mangolpuri, Delhi as per Electoral Rolls of the Election Commission of India. The appellant has further admitted paying market rent of Government quarter for a number of years and thus could not have been unaware of its reasons. He is in the habit of suppressing the facts and misguiding the authorities. It is controverted that the opportunity to present his case was not granted to the appellant before passing impugned order. The appeal is thus urged to be dismissed.
4. I have heard Sh. J. S. Bisht, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Sh. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and carefully perused the file. Originally the Estate Officer had not been impleaded in the appeal. To remove the technical flaw an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed on 01.10.2010 which was instantly allowed. An application under section 151 CPC was filed by the appellant for directing the respondent no. 1 to maintain status quo was PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 4 of 9 filed on 08.12.2010. Before it could be heard and disposed off, however, it was informed subsequently that the respondent no. 1 got the Government premises vacated from him on 08.12.2010 itself.
5. The appellant although has claimed to be continuously residing in the allotted government flat but despite mention of two survey reports in the reply of respondent no. 1 when others were found to be in occupation and Electoral Rolls showing him to be resident of Mangolpuri, Delhi, no documents reflecting his physical possession of quarter in dispute Viz. Ration Card, Electoral Card, Correspondence received, LPC installation receipt have been produced to even prima facie show that the allegations of subletting may not be wholly true. He claims to have asked his daughter and soninlaw to join in the Government quarter so as to take care of her ailing mother but in his reply dated 23.08.2010 submitted to respondent no. 2 it was claimed that Savitri and Kameshwar had joined appellant as they had some family dispute. The appellant has stated even an innocuous fact divergently underlying his malafide to retain the government accommodation.
6. In appeal, the appellant has not challenged order dated 29.11.2006 of respondent no. 1 of cancellation of allotment of Government PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 5 of 9 accommodation. He never appears to have questioned it even with respondent no. 1 or at the earliest opportunity before respondent no. 2. He is aware that excess license fee/rent on account of government accommodation is being deducted from his monthly salary for the last three years yet did not whisper a word. His conduct amplifies that he had accepted the version of respondent no. 1. In fact the appellant had offered to surrender the possession of quarter vide his letter dated 13.12.2006. It does not lie in his mouth now to dispute the allegation of respondent no. 1 of quarter having been sublet or otherwise left in occupation of a third person in violation of the Allotment Rules.
7. Appellant does not disown letters dated 29.03.2007 and 27.07.2010 nor say that those were got written from him under pressure, coercion or undue influence. It is also not stated that circumstances at the time of submitting those letters were different or peculiar. It is therefore taken that requests were made by the appellant voluntarily after understanding the effect and consequences thereof. He is thus estopped from taking a diametrically opposite stand in this appeal. The perusal of proceeding of respondent no. 2 further reveal that the appellant although had filed written reply before him on 23.08.2010 but had requested for PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 6 of 9 being granted one month time (to vacate the quarter). The impugned order, therefore was passed taking his request into consideration.
8. Reliance of appellant on the ratio of "M/s Blaze and Central P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, AIR 1980, Karnatka, 186" holding that where the Estate officers does not provide copy of statement of witness despite being requested, the resultant order is passed by violation of natural justice, is out of place as firstly the appellant had made no request for supplying the two survey reports and secondly the report of first survey had been sent to him on 14.09.2006 but he had chosen to keep silent.
The appellant has further cited "Union of India Vs. Sunil Dutt, 167 (2010) DLT 42" holding that where the members of inspection team did not enter into witness box to substantiate allegations of subletting of Government premises, no case of subletting is made out. Further mere presence of some of the family members of the respondent at the time of inspection does not establish and prove subletting. It however also does not support the case of appellant as the cancellation of allotment of 2006 has not at all been challenged in the appeal. The survey team had not confused the presence of Sh. Kameshwar to conclude the PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 7 of 9 Government quarter having been sublet but had found it to be in exclusive possession of third persons twice. There was no request at any time for calling the members of survey team into witness box. In fact the appellant remained contented even though more than twice the amount of license fee continued to be deducted from his salary for more than three years.
8. The averment of denial of opportunity of hearing of appellant is absurd. He has been taking contrary stands at different times as per his convenience. On the basis of material made available to the respondent no. 2, he could have reached only the conclusion as contained in impugned order. The appeal therefore is held to be baseless and bereft of merits, hence dismissed.
9. The appeal has been filed with delay of about 17 days alongwith an application for condonation of delay. It is claimed that the appellant found the impugned order only on 21.09.2010 under the bed as the same had misplaced from his family members. The application has been countered on the ground of vagueness, falsity and that no good ground for condonation has been made out.
PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 8 of 9
10. The appeal could have been filed within 12 days of publication of eviction oder under section 9 of P. P. Act. The application is silent as to who out of his family members had received the copy of impugned order and on which date. The order sheet dated 23.08.2010 of the Estate Officer indicates that passing of order of eviction and grant of time was notified to him and he had put his signatures in token thereof. A copy was also reportedly provided to him there and then due to which no documents showing its dispatch is available in file. The appellant seems to have made an attempt to shift the blame of delay in filing appeal in vain. He should have been vigilant in taking prompt steps to challenge the impugned order. Such an important order could not have misplaced in the given situation. The appellant has failed to establish good, sound and plausible reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The application seeking condonation as such, is dismissed.
Announced in the open court
on 1st November, 2011 (Sunil K. Aggarwal)
Addl. District Judge (C)10
Delhi
PPA No. 8/2010 Page no. 9 of 9