f 84# o/o 29.OB,2OIL Present: Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay for the petitioner. Ms. Sweety Manchanda for the respondent' +w.P.(c) No. 627412011 & CM Nos. 12617-19/2011 * By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 20J.20!L passed by the District Judge, Saket, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 2I.4.20LL passed by the learned Estate Officer. Assailing the aforesaid two orders, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not granted sufficient opportunity of hearing by the learned Estate Officer, and therefore the petitioner could not present his case for the grant of extension on the medical grounds. Counsel further submits that order dated 2I-4.2011" passed by the learned Estate officer does not disclose any reasons to pass the eviction order against him. ( 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 6 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. . The petitioner was allotted the Government quarter bearing No. 785, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi and the allotment of the said quarter was cancelled by the respondent w.e.t. 29.5.2009 as the said allotment was made by the Government for a limited period which come to an end with the termination of the job of the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he nelinquished the charge of his post and therefore the said allotment also came to an end along with the termination of his job. since the petitioner failed to vacate the said Government accommodation the allotment was cancelled by the respondent and therefore the eviction proceedings against him were initiated by the Iearned Estate Officer invoking Section 4 of' the P.P. Act. The petitioner had also appeared before the Estate Officer on 24.3.2011 and sought time to file reply but thereafter the petitioner failed to appear before the Estate Officer on the adjourned date i.e. 2t.t4.20t1, resulting into ex parte proceedings against him. After having failed to appear before the learned Estate Officer on 2I.4.20t1' and also a having not disclosed to the learned Estate Officer reasons for his non appearance or taking any steps for setting aside of the ex parte proceedings, now the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he was not granted adequate opportunity of hearing to represent his case before the learned Estate Officer. In any event of the matter, the petitioner has failed to disclose to the appellate court as well as this court as to under what legal right he can continue to stay in the said Government accommodation after his Services came to an end. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to retain the Government accommodation on medical ground under the rules for some period also does not sound plausible to this court as the petitioner has moved such an application to seek extension only on 25.7.2011 when the eviction order against him was already passed on 21.4.201,t. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already over stayed in the Government accommodation for more than a period of six months, therefore, no further indulgence can be given to the petitioner. J This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. There is no merit in the present petition, hence the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted one month's time to vacate the said Government' ? accommodation failing which the respondents will be at full liberty to take coercive steps to take possession of the said Government accommodation. KAILASH GAMBHI& J AUGUST 29,2O1.L mg {