UOI Vs. SUNIL DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, Union of India and Estate Officer have filed the present writ petition against the order dated 20th March, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge allowing Mr.<RP> Sunil Dutt</RP>s, the respondent herein, appeal filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act).

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge incorrectly records that the there was no sub-letting of premises T-12/3(half), Uri Enclave, Delhi Cantonment and the inspection report dated 24th February, 2000 was duly proved when it was filed and placed on record before the Estate Officer and the persons, who had conducted the inspection, were not required to be examined. He further submits that only mother of Mr.<RP> Sunil Dutt</RP>, the respondent herein could reside in the premises and brothers of the respondent had no right to reside.

(3.) LEARNED Additional District Judge in the impugned order has referred to previous proceedings under the Act, which were initiated against the respondent, but were later on dropped. She has also referred to the fact that the brother of the respondent herein is an active politician and was an elected member of the Delhi Cantonment Board and had contested election against one Smt. Veena Puri, whose husband was working in MES.