Delhi District Court
Shri Jain Swaitamna Temples, Paushal ... vs Lata Jain on 28 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MR. SANJAY GARG-I
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No. 60/2023
CNR No. DLCT01-015206-2023
In the matter of:-
Sh. Jain Swaitamna Temples,
Paushal & Charitable Trust,
1997, Naughara Gali, Kinari Bazar,
Delhi-110006
Through its Secretary,
Sh. Sudhir Rakyan ...........Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lata Jain,
W/o Late Sh. Arun Kumar Jain,
R/o 2018, Gali Baraf Wali,
Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi- 110006.
Also at:
A/30, Preet Vihar,
Delhi- 110092 .......... Respondent
Date of filing of appeal : 25.10.2023
Date of arguments : 03.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This Judgment shall decide an appeal filed under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.28 17:09:42 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 1 of 12 +0530 referred as "the DRC Act") assailing order dated 15.07.2023 whereby the petition under Section 22 of DRC Act in respect of property i.e. one godown on ground floor, admeasuring 11.6 ft x 19.4 ft in property bearing no. 2018, Gali Baraf Wali, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "property in question") was dismissed. 1.1 Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent, who despite service of notice did not appear before the Court.
Respondent was ex-parte before Ld. Trial Court. Hence, respondent was also proceeded ex-parte before this Court vide order dated 07.12.2023.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts of the present case as per the appellant is that appellant is a Charitable Trust and have let out one godown on ground floor measuring 11 ft. 6" x. 19ft. 4" in property No. 2018, Gali Baraf Wali, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 110006 to the respondent with all the electric fittings provided in the premises and separate electric meter. The tenanted premises is being used as godown by the respondent's husband Shri Arun Kumar Jain (since deceased) and now respondent is using the same as godown for her commercial activities. The monthly rent of the shop/godown is Rs.156/- per month excluding water and electricity charges and the respondent have paid the rent only till 31.03.2005. The appellant had issued a legal notice dated 29.05.2018 for handing over of the vacant possession of the Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG GARG 2025.02.28 17:09:51 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 2 of 12 +0530 property in question which was duly received by the respondent but did not hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. The appellant is owner of the tenanted property which is run through a trust by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The appellant is in dire need of the said tenanted premises for its own bonafide use. The respondent had not paid rental for the tenanted premises for many years in the running now and therefore has become a defaulter and is no more a tenant under the DRC Act. The appellant filed an eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of DRC Act in the month of October 2018 however, reference was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi whereby a religious trust can file an eviction petition only under section 22 of DRC Act and therefore, the appellant was allowed to withdraw the said petition with liberty to file a fresh petition under the appropriate section under the DRC Act vide order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Court of Ms. Sushil Bala Dagar, Ld. Commercial Civil Judge-cum- Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, appellant preferred an eviction petition under section 22 of DRC Act before Ld. ARC, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2023. Hence the present appeal.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
3. It is averred that Ld. ARC has failed to appreciate that the appellant is a public trust and looking after the Jain Temple whose reputation is all over the world and people from Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG GARG 2025.02.28 17:09:59 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 3 of 12 +0530 all parts of the world visit there due to its religious importance. The Ld. ARC failed to appreciate the difference between public trust and private trust.
3.1 It is further averred that ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the private trust is governed by the Indian Trust Act 1882 where as per Section 3 a Trust is an obligation to the ownership of property and arising out of a confidence reposed in an accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner.
3.2 Ld. Trial Court further failed to appreciate that in private trust the person who reposes or declares the confidence is called the beneficiary, the subject matter of the trust is called the trust property or trust money, the beneficial interest or interest of the beneficiary his right against the trustee as owner of the trust property and the instruments by which the trust is declared is called instrument of trust.
3.3 Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that a private trust is created by the owner of the property for the benefit of its family members. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant trust has been running several activities for the general public and is engaged in various religious and charitable activities for the benefit of the jain samaj.
3.4 Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant submitted before the Ld. Trial Court copy of the application filed in the suit No. 200 of 1993 by the board of trustee whereby the Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG GARG 2025.02.28 17:10:06 +0530 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 4 of 12 appellant prayed for change in the clause 11 and 35 in the scheme framed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and after hearing the petitioner the Hon'ble High Court allowed the change in clause 11 and 33 of the scheme of Management of the trust which clearly says that the event of falling vacant the office of the trustees for any other reasons then a religious minded person with dedication and time and having reputation in the society will be co-opted by a vote of 2/3rd majority of the trustees among other things.
ARGUMENTS
4. I have heard Sh. Manoj Singh, Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Respondent is exparte vide order dated 07.12.2023.
5. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellants had reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal and has argued that appellant trust is a public entity and not the private entity. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel has relied upon decision in Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v.
Surajnaryaan Dass & Anr.: 1967 AIR 256; Sarvedshak Arya Pratinidhi Sabha v. Ranjit Singh & Sons: ILR 1974 DELHI 63; Manoj Khurana v. Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, CM(M) 1121/2015 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 18.10.2016; Shanti Swaroop through LRs v. Badri Bhagat Jhandewala, CM(M) 294/2012 decided by Hon'ble Hgih Court of Delhi on 11.07.2017.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG GARG 2025.02.28 17:10:12 +0530 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 5 of 12 ANALYSIS
6. The property in question i.e. one godown on ground floor, admeasuring 11.6 ft x 19.4 ft in property bearing no. 2018, Gali Baraf Wali, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi is stated to have been let out by the appellant to the respondent. In para 11 of the evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/1, it is mentioned as follows:-
"11. That the petitioner is a trust looking after the Jain Temple whose reputation is all over the world and people from all parts of the world visit the temple due to its religious importance and the trust always remain short of the accommodation to be provided to its devotees and tourists and have to accommodate them to hotels, guest houses and dharamshalas situated elsewhere.
7. Ld. Trial Court has held the petitioner (appellant herein) to be private trust and not a public trust on the basis of observations made by Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 01.09.1983 Ex.PW1/C.
8. One of the main contention raised on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the property in question is attached with the temple and as per the definition of temple it is a place which is used as a place of public religious worship. It is stated that it is a public institution as mentioned in Section 22 of DRC Act and the observations made by the Ld. Trial Court is faulty and not sustainable. It has been further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 01.09.1983 Ex.PW1/C has just observed that the petitioner there i.e. Jai Kumar Rakyan & Anr. is a private trust, but the same cannot be held binding on the Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY GARG GARG Date: 2025.02.28 17:10:19 +0530 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 6 of 12 parties in this case. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon some judicial pronouncements to establish that temple means a public trust even though word 'public' is not used there.
9. In Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v.
Surajnaryaan Dass & Anr. (supra) the relevant observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court is as follows:-
In this connection, reference may be made to the definition of 'temple'. While the definition of 'temple' requires that the place would be a temple if it be used as a place of public religious worship, there is no requirement that an institution to be a math must be a public institution for the promotion of the Hindu religion. The use of the word 'public' was not necessary in connection with an institution for the promotion of the Hindu religion as any institution for such promotion of the Hindu religion must be of a public nature; the object being to promote Hindu religion, there would be no point in shutting the benefit of the institution to anyone among the Hindus.
The distinction between a public trust and a private trust is, broadly speaking, that in a public trust the beneficiaries of the trust are the people in general or some section of the people, while in the case of a private trust the beneficiaries are an ascertained body of persons. The beneficiaries of a math are the members of the fraternity to which the math belongs and the persons of the faith to which the spiritual head of the math belongs, and constitute therefore at least a section of the public. Maths, in general, consequently, are public maths. We say nothing as to whether there can be a private math or not.
10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also heavily relied upon Sarvedshk Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Vs Ranjit Singh & Sons (supra). Here, the court has held as under:-
(47) This brings me to the second point that survives for determination in this appeal, namely, whether the society is a Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG GARG 2025.02.28 17:10:26 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 7 of 12 +0530 public institution within the ambit of section 22 of the Act. Relevant provision of section 22 of the Act envisage that where the landlord in respect of any premises is any public institution and the premises are required for the furtherance of its activities, then notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 or in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such landlord, place the landlord in vacant possession of such premises by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation thereof, if the Controller is satisfied that the premises are required bona fide by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities. Explanation to this section contemplates that for the purpose of this section, "public institution" inchides any educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary. Now the question for determination is whether the society is public institution within the meaning of section 22 of the Act. Explanation to this section without doubt shows that the definition is illustrative and not exhaustive. It therefore, cannot be said that only an educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary can be said to be a "public institution". The term "public institution" used in section 22 of the Act is in a generic sense.
11. The plea of the appellant is that it is a religious endowment belonging to Jain Swaitamna Murti Poojak Khartar Guoch Sect engaged in religious and charitable activities in the name of Sh. Jain Swaitamna Temples. It is further submitted that appellant had filed the eviction petition as appellant trust always remains short of the accommodation for its devotees and tourists and thus in need of the tenanted premises for its own bonafide use. As observed by the Court in Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surajnaryaan Dass & Anr. (supra) in a public trust the beneficiaries of the trust are the people in general or some section of the people, while in the case of a private trust the beneficiaries are an ascertained body of persons.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG GARG 2025.02.28 17:10:32 +0530 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 8 of 12
12. Further, in Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust v.
Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal: (1973) ILR Delhi 144, the Court has considered the distinction between public institution and public trust. It is held that trust is primarily a legal concept, a mode of transfer of property and of holding property. On the other hand, an institution is primarily a social concept and it is not a legal concept at all. There is no established legal method by which an institution may come into being. It may be established by way of an organization which may assume any or no legal form. It may be a trust or a company or a statutory corporation or a mere unincorporated association or a society registered or otherwise. It is its work and place in the society that is the hallmark of an institution.
13. As observed by the Court in Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust Vs Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal (supra), an institution is primarily a social concept and is not a legal concept. Respondent is a society and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. What work it does is the most relevant consideration to see if it falls under the definition of public institution. It is further relevant to mention here that public institution is not defined anywhere in this Act.
14. In the impugned order, the sole basis for holding appellant as private trust is the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court in the order Ex.PW1/C. For understanding the nature and character of the appellant, the facts which led to filing of the suit no.200/1983 before Hon'ble High Court has to be seen. This Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.28 17:10:39 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 9 of 12 +0530 suit was filed requesting the Hon'ble High Court for framing a scheme for the management of religious endowments. It is mentioned that petitioners and defendants (excluding defendants no. 5 and 6 who are the deities of two temples) are descendents of Late Sh. Kharati Lal and they belong to Jain Swaitamna Murti Poojak Khartar Guoch Sect. This Sect. has two temples and one Sansthan which are mentioned below:-
a) Shri Jain Swaitamna Mandir,
1997, Naughra Street Kinari Bazar,
Delhi.
b) Shri Jain Swaitamna Mandir,
2875, Chelpuri Street,
Kinari Bazar,
Delhi.
c) Shri Jain Rang Soori Sakhai Khartar Gaoch Jain Paushal
2936, katra khushal Rai, Kinari Bazar Delhi
15. As per Ex.PW1/C various properties including the subject property are attached with said temples. It was in the background of these facts the relevant observation was made by Hon'ble High Court, on the basis of which the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order. For better appreciation of facts the same is reproduced as follows:-
From the narration of facts it appears that the religious endowment is not a public but a private trust. It further appears that there is no proper scheme for the management of the trust and its properties. It is therefore desirable that this court frame a scheme for the management of the abovementioned religious endowments and the properties referred to above. In Ramchand (dead by his legal representatives vs. Thakur Janki Baliabhii Maharaja and another, AIR 1970 S.C. 532 it was held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the management of a temple which is not a public but a private trust.
Digitally
signed by
SANJAY SANJAY GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.02.28
17:10:45
+0530
RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 10 of 12
16. Coming back to the facts of the present case here the appellants have specifically stated through testimony of PW-1 that it is a trust looking after the Jain temple, whose reputation is all over the world and people from all parts of the world visit the temple due to its religious importance and the trust always remain short of the accommodation to be provided to its devotees and tourists and have to accommodate them to hotels, guest houses and dharamshalas situated elsewhere. The respondent being ex-parte, the claim and testimony of appellant goes unrebutted. For deciding this case, as held in Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust Vs Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal (supra), it is its work and place in the society that is the hallmark of an institution. In view of the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 there is no reasonable doubt that on the basis of the work being done by the appellant and the purpose for which the subject property is required, the appellant is a public institution. The Ld. Trial Court erred in holding the appellant to be a private institution on the basis of Ex.PW1/C, without appreciating the work being done by the appellant and the purpose for which they sought to get the subject property evicted.
DECISION
17. In view of the aforesaid reason, the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is set aside. The appeal is thereby allowed. Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.28 17:10:51 +0530 RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 11 of 12
18. The Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order.
16. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SANJAYSANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.28 Announced in the open Court 17:10:56 +0530 on 28th day of February, 2025 (SANJAY GARG-I) Principal District & Sessions Judge Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi(D) RCT-60/2023 Shree Jain Swaitamna Temples Paushal & Charitable Trust v. Lata Jain Page 12 of 12