The petitioners, Union of India and Estate Officer have filed the present writ petition against the order dated 20th March, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge allowing Mr. Sunil Dutt’s, the respondent herein, appeal filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act).

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge incorrectly records that the there was no sub-letting of premises T-12/3(half), Uri Enclave, Delhi Cantonment and the inspection report dated 24th February, 2000 was duly proved when it was filed and placed on record before the Estate Officer and the persons, who had conducted the inspection, were not

required to be examined. He further submits that only mother of Mr. Sunil Dutt, the respondent herein could reside in the premises and brothers of the respondent had no right to reside.

3. The respondent’s father was originally allotted the said accommodation more than 45 years back. In 1986, the said accommodation was allotted to the respondent before his father retired.

4. Learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order has referred to previous proceedings under the Act, which were initiated against the respondent, but were later on dropped. She has also referred to the fact that the brother of the respondent herein is an active politician and was an elected member of the Delhi Cantonment Board and had contested election against one Smt. Veena Puri, whose husband was working in MES.

5. The admitted position is that the members of the inspection team did not enter into the witness box to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner had sublet the premises. Even as per the inspection report dated 24th February, 2000, the respondent, his wife and three children were found to be residing in the premises. The allegation made against the respondent was that his mother aged 71 years, two brothers Ashwani Mitter and Anil Mitter along with their wives and six children were also found in the premises at the time of inspection and this constituted subletting.

6. It is, therefore, appropriate here to note the findings of Brigadier S.K. Uppal, the Estate Officer in his earlier order dated 30th August, 2003, which are as under:-

“A perusal of the aforesaid documents proves beyond doubt that apart from the Respondent and his family, the family of both his brothers Shri Ashwani Mittar and Shri Anil Mittar none of whom are dependent upon the Respondent were found to be in use/occupation of the said pubic (sic) premises on the day when the Surprise Check took place.”

7. This order was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded back vide order dated 20th December, 2005, with a direction that the additional documents filed by the respondent should be taken into consideration. These documents were considered, but another eviction order dated 9th November, 2006 was passed by the Estate Officer. This order deals with the documents produced by the respondent and notes that as per the electoral roll of year 1998, the brother of the respondent herein Mr. Ashwini Mitter was residing at Lajwanti Garden, Nangal Raya. However, these electoral rolls were rejected on the ground that names of the brothers of the respondent also appeared in the electoral roll for Delhi Cantonment Board and the name of the father of the respondent, Mr. Jagdish Mitter, who had expired was not deleted. The respondent had in addition also filed electricity bills and telephone bill of the premises at Nangal Raya. These bills were rejected on the ground that they do not prove that the brothers of the respondent were in physical occupation of the house in Nangal Raya. Pass book of SBI as well as Ration Card in the name of the brothers of the respondents were rejected.

8. Learned Additional District Judge in her detailed order dated 20th March, 2007 has examined the said aspec