The judgment emphasizes the importance of preventing unauthorized occupation of public premises and upholding residency rules for government employees.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 11th January, 2018 in PPA No. 296/2016 of the Court of District Judge, New Delhi acting as Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)] of dismissal of appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order [No. EC/09/AD/LIT/2016/T-1(Sub) dated 29th August, 2016 of the respondent No. 4 Estate Officer, Directorate of Estates] of eviction of the petitioner from quarter No. E-195, Moti Bagh, New Delhi allotted to the petitioner by virtue of his employment as Multi-Tasking Staff in the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi.

2. This petition came up first before this Court on 5th February, 2018 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and coercive action restrained.

3. The record of the District Judge requisitioned in this Court has been received and the counsels have been heard.

4. The counsel for the respondents has in Court also shown the record of the proceedings before the respondent No. 4/Estate Officer.

5. On receipt of reports that the General Pool Residential Accommodation being quarter No. 195, Block-E, Moti Bagh, New Delhi allotted to the petitioner had been sublet by the petitioner to some unauthorized persons in contravention of provisions contained in SR 317-B-20 of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963, an inspection of the said premises was carried out on 5th September, 2014 at 13:25 hours and Smt. Surinder Kaur, who claimed to be the wife of the petitioner and Smt. Reena, who claimed to be the wife of the son of the petitioner, were found in the premises. Suspecting subletting of the quarter by the petitioner, notice to show cause dated 29th September, 2014 was issued to the petitioner and in response to which Smt. Samta Rani, wife of Ajay Kumar, claiming to be the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, appeared before the Deputy Director of Estate, but did not produce any documents. The said Smt. Samta Rani claimed to be staying in the quarter aforesaid along with her mother-in-law Surinder Kaur, her husband Ajay Kumar and Azad, another son of the petitioner, and Ekta, daughter of the petitioner. However, the said Samta Rani could not establish her relationship as daughter-in-law with the petitioner and could not explain the presence found during inspection, of Reena. Though further opportunities were given to the petitioner to prove that the petitioner and his family members were residing in the premises, but no such documents were produced.

6. Accordingly, vide order dated 9th March, 2015 of the Assistant Director of Estates, the allotment of the aforesaid quarter in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.

7. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of cancellation of allotment, to the Director of Estates, but the said appeal was also dismissed on 7th September, 2015, reasoning that the petitioner, on being granted opportunity of hearing had appeared along with one lady whom the petitioner claimed to be his relative, but even before the Appellate Authority, the relationship of the said lady, who was claimed to be Smt. Samta Rani, daughter-in-law of the petitioner, could not be established. The petitioner, before the Appellate Authority also, inspite of opportunities, could not produce Smt. Reena, who was found in the quarter at the time of inspection. The petitioner claimed before the Appellate Authority, that Smt. Reena was his son’s wife but further stated that she was not staying with the petitioner. Though fresh opportunities to produce Smt. Reena were given, but the petitioner did not produce Smt. Reena. The Appellate Authority thus upheld the order dated 9th March, 2015 of the Assistant Director of Estates, of cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner.

8. Thereafter, notice under Section 4 of the PP Act was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 Estate Officer.

9. The petitioner,