RSA No.139 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.139 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.10.2010 Jaswant Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the State of Punjab has been accepted and decree of trial Court holding that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to House Rent Allowance for the period w.e.f. 12.8.1980 upto 20.5.2000, was set aside. In the suit, the plaintiff-appellant claimed various service benefits including that while working as Chowkidar w.e.f. 8.12.1980 upto 20.5.2000 he was not allotted Govt. accommodation and therefore, in lieu of that he was entitled to House Rent Allowance. The aforesaid claim of the appellant was contested on the ground that the plaintiff, along with his family and other chowkidars, namely, Sh. Gazedar, who retired on 30.6.1995 and Sh. Sharku, who retired on 30.6.1998, was living in Government accommodation earmarked in the boundary walls of the office. All of them were living in Government accommodation, so they were not given house rent allowance. Their predecessors were also living in those quarters and were not given any RSA No.139 of 2009 2 house rent allowance. Therefore, he is not entitled to receive any house rent from the date of his appointment till he was given said Government accommodation and he was allotted Govt. accommodation on 12.5.2000 which he occupied on 21.5.2000. After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the claim of House Rent Allowance of the appellant. The relevant part of the judgment of trial Court reads as follows: “I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff & Government Pleader for the State and given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and I have come to the conclusion that this is admitted fact that the plaintiff has been allotted quarter No.35 (B-Block) meant for Class IV employees on dated 12.5.2000 which the plaintiff occupied on 21.5.2000. The defendants in their written statement has averred that the prior to 21.5.2000, the plaintiff was residing in a Government quarter in Old Court Complex, Jalandhar but have failed to show document/allotment letter by way of which the plaintiff was allotted any quarter in Old Court Complex. DW1 Suresh Kumar, who is Superintendent Grade-II in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, admitted in his cross examination that he is not in possession of any allotment order/letter vide which the plaintiff was allotted accommodation in earmarked boundary wall. He further admitted that he cannot tell date, month and year when any accommodation was allotted for the RSA No.139 of 2009 3 residential purpose of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that no such Government quarters ever existed in Old Court Complex, Jalandhar. So, the question of allotting any quarter to the plaintiff does not arise. DW1 in his cross examination himself stated that he cannot tell the number of quarters which was allegedly allotted to the plaintiff for his residence. He has failed to show any order on the file about the allotment of residential accommodation to the plaintiff to the Court. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Government Pleader that the plaintiff used to give address of Old Court Complex, in all the correspondence including letter written by Food Supply Officer to Deputy Commissioner and the voter list 1984, 1988, 1999 does not carry much weight because the defendants have miserably failed to prove that there ever existed any quarters in the Old Court Complex and number of quarter allotted to the plaintiff and non availability of any allotment order of any quarter to the plaintiff in Old Court Complex between the said period. So in my considered view, the plaintiff is entitled to the house Rent Allowance for the period from 8.12.1980 to 20.5.2000. But for the payment of arrears, this Court can only grant the arrears of 38 months prior to the filing of the present suit alongwith interest.” However, on an appeal filed by the defendant-respondents, the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree set aside the RSA No.139 of 2009 4 aforesaid decree of the trial Court. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under: “A minute perusal of the documents, proved on the record by the defendants, makes it very much clear that the plaintiff has been residing in the accommodation provided to him in Purani Kacheri Complex. In the form Ex.D3, which was filled by him regarding his police verification, he gave his present address as Old District Courts, Jalandhar. In voter's lists Ex.D4 and Ex.D5, which were prepared at the time of election to the Lok Sabha in the year 1984 and 1988, he is shown to be residing in the D.C. Office itself. In the voter's list for the year 1999 Ex.D6, not only he himself but even his wife have been shown to be recorded as voters at the address of the D.C, Office. A letter was written by the District Controller Food & Supplies, Consumer Affairs, Jalandhar, to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, in reply to his letter dated 13.3.2006. In that letter it was detailed by the District Controller that one ration card was issued on 1.9.1998 in the name of the plaintiff at the address of Purani Kachehri, in which five members of the family were entered and thereafter that ration card was shifted to Quarter No.35-B New Baradari on 16.8.2002. Not only that, in the affidavit dated 18.4.1994 Ex.D8, which was sworn by the plaintiff himself, he had described himself to be presently residing in quarters situated in Purani Kachehri, Jalandhar. The oral evidence produced by the defendants coupled with this RSA No.139 of 2009 5 documentary evidence shows that it is that evidence which is more reliable as compared to the evidence produced by the plaintiff. From that evidence, it stands proved that the plaintiff had been residing in the quarter provided to him in the premises of Old Courts and he was not residing in any such house of Krishan Lal, during the period in question. Therefore, this point is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.” A perusal of the aforesaid discussion would show that a finding of fact has been recorded against the appellant on the basis of evidence on record. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence to support the version of the appellant as given in his statement and the statement of Krishan Lal, the alleged owner of the house. In view of the discussion aforesaid, it cannot be said that the findings of the Lower Appellate Court are perverse. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. October 11, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE