48# % 26.08.2011 Present: Ms. Anita Saroha for the petitioner. Mr.Jatan Singh for the respondents. +W.P.(C) No. 6216/2011 & CM. NO. 12535/2011 * By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 26.7.2011 passed by the District Judge, New Delhi, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and upholding the order of eviction passed by the learned Estate Officer vide order dated 30.9.2010. Assailing the aforesaid order, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Government employee with Ministry of Cooperate Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and from 22.6.2007 till 31.3.2010 she was on leave and had gone to Dubai. Counsel submits that intermittently she had been visiting Delhi and was residing in said government quarter. Counsel also submits that in fact Signing Date:06.09.2024 17:17:58 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified during her leave period she had entrusted the said quarter to her mother-in-law and sister K.N. Bhwani to take care of the quarter. Counsel submits that Ms. Madhu who was found in possession at the time of the inspection by the team deputed by the respondent is a close friend of the petitioner who often used to visit her mother-in-law. Counsel further submits that Mr. Kewal Kumar is the husband of Ms. Madhu and both these persons were there along with her mother-in-law at the time of the inspection. Counsel also submits that in fact the falseness of Mr. P.S. Parmar who had filed false complaint alleging subletting of the said quarter by the petitioner is evident from the fact that later on he withdrew the said complaint vide his letter dated 18.8.2011. Counsel also submits that along with the present petition affidavit of Ms. Madhu has been placed on record. Based on these submissions, counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have committed illegality in passing the impugned orders, while factually the petitioner alone was in actual possession of the said quarter. Counsel also submits that in fact the medical prescriptions were also placed on record by the petitioners to show that the petitioner was in Delhi for some short periods during the said period of leave. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. Indisputably, the appellant had taken a long leave from her office and was away to Dubai during that period. Possibly she might be visiting Delhi during the said period but the question before the courts below was whether the petitioner had sublet the said Government quarter in favour of some other person. The inspecting team deputed by the respondent found one Ms. Madhu and her husband to be in possession of the said Government quarter. Ms. Madhu had disclosed her relationship with the petitioner as that of sister- in-law, which is even not the case of the petitioner in the present petition. No motives can be attributed to the inspecting team as they had no animus with the petitioner to record any such wrong facts. Another indisputable fact is that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence of either Ms. Madhu or her mother-in-law to support her version that her mother-in-law was entrusted possession of the quarter during her leave period and Ms. Madhu had been visiting her being a friend of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be allowed to build a new case before the writ court or to file any fresh documents which were never placed by the petitioner before the courts below. This court m the exercise of writ jurisdiction has to examine the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the courts below. The petitioner has also not given any explanation to this court as well as to the courts below for not having given any information to her employer that during her leave period she would be handing over the possession of the quarter to her mother-in-law. The learned trial court has made reference to Rule 317-B-20 in this regard. The learned trial court also observed that no argument regarding this rule was advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. The only explanation given by the petitioner with regard to the said rule in the present petition is that the respondents were well aware of the fact that the petitioner was on medical leave and was undertaking medical treatment and for that she was required to frequently visit India for her treatment. This explanation given by the petitioner does not appear to be in sufficient compliance of aforesaid Rule. In the light of the above, this court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly Dismissed. AUGUST 26, 2011 mg KAILASH GAMBHIR, J - . CI..N, \l" c . 1 ·v ) Y :II C /l<;9KJw,