G B GHADGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein has impugned the order dated 5th September, 1994 passed by the Assistant Estate Manager, Respondent No.3 herein, cancelling the allotment of flat No.20, Type III situated at Wadala. The said cancellation is on the ground that the Petitioner had unauthorisedly given the said premises to one Rajkumar Bhagat who works in a different department i.e. in Customs department. The Petitioner challenged the said cancellation order by filing appeal under section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, who, however, dismissed the same by his order dated 12th September, 1997.

(2.) We have heard Shri Surve for the Petitioner and Shri Agrawal for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. We have also perused the relevant documents. It is to be noted that in view of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.585/1994-Shiv Sagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India, investigation about the actual occupation of the Government Premises, was undertaken by the C.B.I. The premises allotted to the petitioner were inspected on 29th January, 1994 and at that time it was found that the said Rajkumar Bhagat was in occupation of the same with his family and that neither the petitioner nor any member of his family was found residing there. On the basis of the facts revealed in the investigation, a case has been registered against the Petitioner. The papers of the investigation disclose that the premises in question were in actual occupation of the said Rajkumar Bhagat and that the petitioner was residing elsewhere i.e. in Room No.3, Phate Niwas, Gundawali Gawathan, Azad Road, Andheri, Mumbai - 69. In the course of the investigation the statement of Rajkumar Bhagat came to be recorded wherein he admitted that he was residing in the premises in question. As regards the petitioner's residence at Andheri is concerned, documentary evidence in the shape of his ration card and identity card was collected which confirmed the fact that the petitioner was residing at Andheri. In addition to that, statement of one Shri D.J. Mhatre, a person residing in the neighbourhood was recorded and he has also disclosed the fact that the petitioner has been residing continuously at the said Andheri residence for the last ten years.

(3.) In the light of this evidence, the order of cancellation passed by the Assistant Estate Manager, which is confirmed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, cannot be successfully impugned. We, thus, find no merit in this Writ Petition and, therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting the same. The same is accordingly rejected.