R.S.A.No. 1497 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1497 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 29.3.2011 Kamlesh Talwar ......Appellant Versus Chandigarh Administration .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order of cancellation of allotment of the house in question. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff was working as Senior Assistant in Home Department, U.T.Chandigarh. She was allotted house No. II/ 502-B, Sector 35, Chandigarh in the year 1992. Darshan Kumar, who was closely related to the plaintiff, was blessed with a son on 27.9.1992 but unfortunately, the child died on 29.9.1992. Darshan Kumar was allowed to live in the house in question by the plaintiff on humanitarian ground. Darshan Kumar was allowed to live in a portion of the house in August 1993 to R.S.A.No. 1497 of 2011(O&M) 2 February 1994 without payment of rent to the plaintiff. The Vigilance enquiry conducted against the plaintiff on an anonymous complaint was not correct. The impugned order of cancellation of allotment of the house was liable to be set aside. The representations filed by the plaintiff against the order of cancellation of allotment had been rejected by the authorities without any application of mind. Defendant No.3 had passed the order of recovery of ` 3,47,234/- dated 1.6.2004 against the plaintiff without issuing any notice. The defendants, in their written statement averred that a vigilance enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff on the allegations that the house in question had been sublet by her from August 1993 to February 1994. In these circumstances, the allotment of the house in question to the plaintiff was liable to be cancelled. Darshan Kumar was not related to the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek decree for declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek decree for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether there is no cause of action for filing the present suit ? OPP 4. Whether suit is bad for non serving notice under Section 80 CPC ? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is guilty herself and has misused the terms and conditions of allotment while subletting the same to Darshan Kumar ? OPD R.S.A.No. 1497 of 2011(O&M) 3 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 7.11.2007, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Chandigarh decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendants were given liberty to consider the case of the plaintiff afresh in view of the observations made by the Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal. The District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010 partly allowed the appeal and it was ordered that the cancellation of the allotment of the house in favour of the plaintiff was valid. However, the department was entitled to licence fee as per rules for the period after expiry of 15 days from 28.10.2003 till the vacation of the house i.e. 6.2.2006. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the house in question was allotted to the plaintiff by the defendants. On an anonymous complaint, a vigilance enquiry was got conducted and it was found that the plaintiff had sublet the house in question to Darshan Kumar from August 1993 to February 1994. The case of the plaintiff was that Darshan Kumar was closely related to her and hence, had been allowed to live in a portion of the house without any payment of rent on humanitarian ground as the son of Darshan Kumar had expired on 27.9.1992. However, the plaintiff admitted in her cross-examination that Darshan Kumar was not related to her and her relation with him was due to neighbourhood. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact R.S.A.No. 1497 of 2011(O&M) 4 that the house in question had been sublet by the plaintiff to Darshan Kumar. In these circumstances in view of Rule 20 (1) (a) of the Government Residence (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Rules 1996 (for short ‘the Rules) the allotment in favour of the plaintiff was liable to be cancelled. As per Rule 20 (2) of the Rules, whenever any action to cancel the allotment is taken on account of subletting of the premises by the allottee, a period of 15 days shall be allowed to the allottee to vacate the premises. The plaintiff had failed to vacate the premises within the prescribed period. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is liable to pay the licence fee as per Rules for the period after expiry of 15 days from 28.10.2003 till the vacation of the house i.e. 6.2.2006. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 29, 2011 anita