: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.764 OF 2009 Baliram Abhimanyu Suryavanshi ..Appellant V/s. M.H.A.D.A. & Ors. ..Respondents ..... Mr. S.S. Lanke for the the appellant None for the respondents ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 1st JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The appellant claimed that he is entitled to a separate accommodation as he was staying with his brother independently. The respondent MHADA declined to accept the request and informed the appellant by letter dated 8th December, 2005 that the appellant s brother would not be entitled to a separate accommodation. This stand of the respondent came to be challenged by institution of the present suit i.e. : 2 : Suit No.601 of 2006. The said suit was filed in the City Civil Court at Mumbai. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court tried the said suit and by judgment and decree dated 4th April, 2009 dismissed the suit against which the appellant has filed the present appeal. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Lanke extensively. According to him the present appellant as well as the brother had separate Patch card and separate ration card and that the brother was entitled to a separate accommodation. 2. This very stand of the appellant came to be negatived by the learned trial Judge by placing reliance on election extract which was produced by the appellant himself. The learned Judge in paragraph 8 of his judgment has specifically observed that at Sr.No. 427 in the voters list, the name of the father of appellant is shown as residing in Hut No.2 and at Sr.No.428 name of the brother of the plaintiff is shown as residing in Hut No.2. The learned Judge further observed that the voter s card shows that the appellant and his brother were residing in Hut No.2. The Patch holder card is in the name of the brother of the appellant. : 3 : 3. The learned trial Judge has given proper weightage to the fact that the appellant s brother and father were residing in Hut No.2. If that be so, it will be clear that both of them are staying in the same roof. It cannot be disputed by the appellant that the father has been granted alternate accommodation in lieu of Hut No.2. If this is be so, the brother cannot claim a separate accommodation in respect of same Hut No.2. 4. The contention of the appellant that the brother had a separate room, cannot be accepted in view of the well settled and well accepted document namely the election extract. If it was the case of the appellant that the said entry in election extract is wrong and that the brother of the appellant is residing in some other room, it was absolutely necessary for the appellant or the brother of the appellant to have that the election extract modified. It is required to be noted that the election extract was produced by the appellant and admitted by the appellant. Learned trial Judge has passed the said order on the basis of vital document viz. election extract and no fault can be found therein. By now, it is well settled that the : 4 : ration card which is issued by the Government of Maharashtra, cannot be used for the purposes of showing proof of the residence. In any case, entry in the election extract will have to be treated as final entry and inferences can be drawn. In my view, learned trial Judge has read the entire record in the proper perspective and has rightly negatived the claim of the appellant and no interference is required in the first appeal. Hence, the order. ORDER . First appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)