(ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the Delhi State Commission ( in short, the State Commission) dated 06.09.2016 whereby appeal of the respondent-DDA against the order of the District Forum dated 22.07.2011 in CC no. 751 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent had floated a scheme known as Economically Weaker Section, Motia Khan Jhuggi Dwellers Rehabilitation Housing Scheme” and under the scheme, respondent had allotted janta flats to jhuggi dwellers in lieu of their jhuggis. The petitioner applied under the said category and an allotment-cum-demand letter dated 26.12.2001, 31.12.2001 was issued to him and he was allotted category ‘C’ flat no. 27, Block G 3, Sector 4 at Rohini at the cost of Rs.2,67,100/- on hire purchase basis. The petitioner made the payment of Rs.10,000/- on 30.01.2012. The respondent, however, did not issue possession letter despite making several representations. The possession letter was not issued on the ground that he had failed to produce the demolition slip and the allotment was cancelled in his favour vide letter dated 21.12.2014. Aggrieved by the cancellation, the petitioner filed the complaint. 3. In the reply, respondent had taken a stand that as per clause 12 of the brochure of the scheme, possession could be handed over to the allottee only on completion of codal formalities and on handing over the site of jhuggi to DDA. It is submitted that complainant neither had shown any demolition slip showing that jhuggi in his possession was demolished by the DDA nor he had handed over the vacant possession of the jhugi. It was further their stand that demolition slip of jhuggi no.C-5A/99 is in the name of Bimla w/o Ram Singh and this shows that jhuggi against which the complainant is claiming allotment was not in his possession. 4. After recording the evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 04.04.2007 and directed the respondent to hand over the possession of the flat in question to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this direction, an appeal was filed by the respondent being Appeal no. 7 of 993 before the State Commission which was disposed off vide order dated 28.01.2008 and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration to the District Forum. 5. The District Forum after receiving the matter on remand, decided it afresh. It also considered clause 12 of the brochure and reached to the following conclusion: 11. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we again hold OP guilty of deficiency in service in not issuing a possession letter to the complainant and cancelling his allotment and we further direct OP to issue the possession letter to the complainant and hand over possession of the flat in question in terms of allotment cum demand letter. We further direct to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, humiliation and torture etc against his claim of Rs.1 lakh. We further direct Op to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- towards the legal expenses, as claimed by him. 6. The respondent aggrieved by these directions filed appeal No. 504 of 2011 which was decided on 06.09.2016. The appeal was allowed and order of the District Forum dated 22.07.2011 was set aside. 7. By way of present revision petition, the complainant has impugned the order dated 06.09.2016. It is argued that impugned order suffers with illegality and perversity since it had not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner had filed an affidavit swearing therein that he had lost demolition slip and that is why he could not produce it before the DDA. It is further argued that State Commission has failed to consider other evidences like ration card and yellow card ( issued to him at the time of survey of that area). He applied under the scheme being eligible and deposited the money. He had also submitted the copy of ration card alongwith his application. It is submitted that these documents have been ignored by the State Commission in the impugned order. These documents are the material documents and clearly show that he was the occupant of jhuggi no. C-5A/99, Motia Khan. 8. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that petitioner could not produce the demolition slip and that the ration card is not the sufficient proof of his physical occupation of the jhuggi at the time when he applied for allotment under the scheme. It is submitted that as per their record, the occupant of jhuggi was one Smt. Bimla who was in possession of the demolition slip and accordingly she was the eligible candidate and not him. 9. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The admitted facts are that petitioner had applied under the said scheme and deposited the money and allotment-cum-demand letter was issued in his name. At the time of handing over of the possession in terms of clause 12 of the brochure, he was required to hand over the jhuggi to DDA in lieu of which, flat was allotted to him by DDA under the Scheme. Clause 12 of the brochure reads as under: “Handing over possession “ On receipt of demanded payment and completion of codal formalities as per the demand-cum-allotment letter, the allottee is entitled to take over possession of the flat. Before taking over possession allottee is required to hand over the site of jhuggi to DDA.” 11. Argument of counsel for the petitioner is that he could not hand over the site of the jhuggi because it was demolished. If he was in possession of said jhuggi and it was demolished, he ought to have been in possession of demolition slip. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that demolition slip was issued to him but he had lost it and he had submitted an affidavit to this effect before the DDA. The DDA had acted on the basis of survey conducted by them and subsequently found that one Bimla was in actual physical possession of the said jhuggi and on demolition of her jhuggi, demolition slip was issued to her. 12. The issue is whether at the time when the application was furnished by the petitioner, the petitioner was in actual possession of the jhuggi. The petitioner in order to prove that he was in physical possession of the jhuggi is relying on ration card and the slip issued to him after the survey of the area. This slip is placed at page 114 of the paperbook. This slip relates to the squatters at Motia Khan and the slip shows that in Survey he was found squatting. It does not suggest that he was in occupation / possession of the said jhuggi. In the application for allotment submitted by Petitioner, it is evident that he has not given the address of the jhuggi in question, but had given some other postal address for correspondence and the same address has been given against the column of permanent address. If he was in occupation and possession of said jhuggi, his permanent address could have been a different address but his current address would have been that of the jhuggi. The other documents filed by the Petitioner also show that he has been corresponding not from the address of the jhuggi but from some other address. He has also not produced the original ration card for the perusal of the Court at any stage nor he has filed the demolition slip. It is apparent that he had only filed copy of the ration card and in the absence of original ration card, it cannot be presumed that copy of the ration card furnished with the respondent was a correct copy. The burden was upon the petitioner to prove that he was residing in the said jhuggi and taking ration at the address of jhuggi. In the absence of any valid document to prove the possession of the said jhuggi, the State Commission has rightly held that petitioner had failed to prove that he was in physical possession of the jhuggi which was demolished and had failed to prove that he was eligible for the allotment and also failed to comply with condition no.12 of the brochure. 11. I find no illegality in the impugned order. Revision Petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
