R.S.A. No. 752 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 752 of 2007
Date of Decision: 23.1.2009
Kapoor Singh Dalal
....Appellant
versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the appellant.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
Having lost before the Courts below, the plaintiff has
approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against
the judgment and decree dated 1.2.2006 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Chandigarh, affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior
Division) dated 10.1.2005 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration
and injunction under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was
dismissed.
Shorn off the unnecessary details, the facts of the case are
that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order of
cancellation of the allotment of Govt. accommodation to him was illegal
and null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants to dispossess him from the same forcibly, on the averments
that the plaintiff who was working as Assistant in the office of defendant
R.S.A. No. 752 of 2007 -2-
No.5, was allotted XII Type Government House bearing No. 2342-A,
Sector 20-C, Chandigarh vide allotment order dated 18.2.1999. It was
pleaded that on a false complaint and report of the Work Inspector
dated 10.6.1999 to the effect that the plaintiff had sub-let the Govt.
accommodation, a show cause notice dated 18.6.1999 was issued to
him for cancellation of the allotment of the house in question. The said
notice was duly replied by the plaintiff stating therein that he was
residing in the said house along with his family members. Thereafter,
defendant No.2 issued another letter dated 5.8.1999 to the plaintiff
requisitioning more documents and the said letter was also replied by
the plaintiff on 10.8.1999. It was further pleaded that thereafter the
plaintiff neither received any response from defendant No.2 nor was
given any opportunity to lead evidence in support of his contentions that
the house in question was not sub-let by him at any point of time. Vide
memo dated 25.7.2000, defendant No.2 had cancelled the allotment of
the said house mentioning therein that the said house had been sub-let
to one Rajinder Mittal on rent @ Rs.1500/- per month. It was also
pleaded that the plaintiff was asked to submit the statement of
neighbours to the effect that he had not sub-let the house vide letter
dated 30.8.1999 and thereafter reminder dated 1.12.1999 was also sent
to him but he failed to furnish any reply. According to plaintiff, he had
not violated any of the rules of the allotment including Rule 19 (2),
reproduced in the cancellation of allotment order.
Notice of the suit was issued. Defendants No.1 to 3 in their
joint written statement raised various preliminary objections. It was
pleaded that the plaintiff had violated Rule 20 of the (Govt. Residences
R.S.A. No. 752 of 2007 -3-
Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 by sub-
letting the house in dispute to one Rajesh Mittal. The factum of sub-
letting was corroborated by complaint of Mohalla Sudhar Association,
Sector-20, Chandigarh as well as from the report of the Work Inspector.
It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was asked to submit the
statement to the effect that he had not sub-let the house through letters
and reminders but he failed to furnish the same and was also offered an
opportunity of hearing on 16.5.2000 but he failed to produce any
documentary evidence to prove that he had not sub-let the house in
question.
Defendants No.4 and 5 also filed a separate joint written
statement raising various preliminary objections. They while supporting
the cancellation order and the factum of affording of an opportunity of
hearing to the plaintiff by defendants No.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of
the suit.
The trial Court framed various issues and on appreciation
of the oral as well as the documentary evidence dismissed the suit of
the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.2005. Feeling
aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the lower appellate Court which,
vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2006 dismissed the appeal holding
the same to be without any merit. Hence, the present regular second
appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made valiant efforts
to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record
so as to differ with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts
R.S.A. No. 752 of 2007 -4-
below, but he failed to show any illegality or perversity therein
warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The
courts below on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, had
recorded a finding of fact that plaintiff who was allotted the house in
question, had sub-let the same to one Rajesh Mittal. Further, it was
recorded that the plaintiff had violated the conditions mentioned in the
allotment letter.
No question of law much less the substantial question of
law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court.
In view of what has been stated above, the present appeal
fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
January 23, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
R.S.A. No. 752 of 2007 -5-
C.M. Nos. 2033-34-C of 2007 and
RSA No. 752 of 2007
Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
****
C.M. No. 2033-C of 2007
This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure for permission to affix the court fee.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant states that
since the required additional court fee has been affixed, the delay, if any
in affixing the court fee, may be condoned.
After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the
application, the delay, if any, in affixing the court fee is condoned.
CM stands disposed of accordingly.
C.M. No. 2034-C of 2007
This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure for condonation of 174 days’ delay in refiling the appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the
application which is supported by an affidavit, the delay in refiling the
appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of accordingly.
January 23, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE