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