The burden of proof lies on the party alleging subletting, and the evidence must conclusively establish the same.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The petitioner before this Court is Raj Pal. He is the owner of Government Quarter No. S-4/876, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. He is stated to be working as Assistant Compiler in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. He was allotted the aforenoted accommodation by the Government of India. He is still occupying the said property.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 12.05.2016 which had endorsed the findings returned by the Estate Officer dated 17.07.2015 vide which the petitioner had been directed to vacate the aforenoted quarter.

3. The impugned order (12.05.2016) had held that pursuant to an inspection carried out on 10.11.2012, it had revealed that the original allottee had sub-let this quarter; he was not the occupant of the quarter at the time of the aforenoted inspection. Since this was a violation of the Rules under which quarter had been allotted to him, a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was served upon the petitioner. After evidence had been led before the Estate Officer, an order had been passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the said Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act stood dismissed by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures; the main reason for holding out that the petitioner had sub-let the quarter was for the reason that at the time of inspection, one Vikas was found occupying the Government quarter and although he had introduced himself as the son of the allottee yet the signatures taken on that inspection report did not match with the signatures of Vikas when he appeared before the Court to append his signatures. This non-matching of the signature had led the Estate Officer to draw a conclusion that this Vikas was an impersonator; he was not the son of the petitioner. Another reason which had led the Appellate Court to hold that the findings of the Estate Officer were correct was for the reason that when Vikas was asked as to where he was working, he stated that his work shop is in Madan Gir whereas his business card filed before the Court revealed his car shop center was at Masood Pur, Vasant Kunj. This also reflects upon the dubious status of Vikas. The telephone number provided by the occupant/occupier (purported to be Vikas) was also different from the telephone number of the actual Vikas. Vikas had disclosed the name of his mother as Munni Devi where the CGHS card of the applicant shows that his wife is Beena Devi and not Munni Devi. It was for all the aforenoted reasons that the learned District Judge as also the Estate Officer had held that the petitioner is an illegal occupant in the said quarter; it was a case of subletting.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this finding is wholly erroneous and illegal. He has drawn attention of this Court to the driving license of Vikas wherein the signatures of Vikas appear on the said document. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a scrutiny of this signature of Vikas (on this document) clearly shows that the manner of appending these signatures (by Vikas) matches the signature given by the person who had signed the inspection report. His further submission is that although the alleged Vikas (present at the time of inspection) had stated that he was working in a shop at Madan Gir and the business card of Vikas (in Court) evidenced that he has a shop at Masood Pur yet doing the work of car dealing and Madan Gir and Masood Pur being at a distance of 3-4 kilometers; the work at Masood Pur had also made Vikas to visit shop at Madan Gir and this was in connection with his car dealing business. On the third count, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the name disclosed by the petitioner of