Delhi District Court
Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples vs Laxman Prasad Verma on 21 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC ARC NO.514/21
CNR NO.DLCT03-005691-2021
IN THE MATTER OF: -
SHRI JAIN SWEITAMNA TEMPLES
Paushal & Charitable Trust
1997, Naughara Gali, Kinari Bazar,
Delhi - 110 006
Through its Secretary Sh. Sudhir Rakyan ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
LAXMAN PRASAD VERMA (since deceased)
S/o Sh. Chhotey Lal or his legal heir
At Shop No.17, 1383-85,
S.B. Sarafa Market,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110 006
Also at:
Laxman Prasad Verma (since deceased)
S/o Sh. Chhotey Lal
C/o M/s. Chhotey Lal Laxman Prasad Saraf
Sadar Bazar, Shahjahan Pur,
Uttar Pradesh - 242 001. ...RESPONDENT
Date of institution : 15.12.2021
Date of reservation : 05.12.2025
Date of judgment : 21.01.2026
PETITION UNDER SECTION 22 OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
FOR EVICTION OF TENANTED PREMISES
RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide a petition under Section 22 of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") filed on behalf of petitioner praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner in respect of shop/property bearing no.17, 1383-85, S.B. Sarafa Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110 006 as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises"). BRIEF FACTS OF THE PETITION:
2. The brief facts of the present petition as alleged by the petitioner which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that, a. That the present petition has been filed through Sh. Sudhir Rakyan who has been appointed as Secretary of petitioner Trust vide Resolution dated 14.11.2021 after death of earlier secretary namely Sh. Vinay Chand Jain and he is duly authorized to file the present petition on behalf of petitioner.
a. The petitioner is Charitable Trust and had let out the tenanted premises to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 64/- per month RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 2 of 12 (Rent 44 + HT 20) excluding water and electricity charges for commercial purpose. It is alleged that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the tenanted premises which is run through a trust by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
b. That respondent was in possession of the tenanted premises and paid last rent till 22.04.2006. Thereafter, no rent was paid to the petitioner.
c. That respondent has expired and his LRs. never informed the petitioner about the death and the tenanted premises has been lying locked for past more than 20 years and is in dilapidated condition which requires urgent repair and maintenance. d. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated 23.12.2020 for handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises via speed post on 24.12.2020 which returned back with envelope dated 26.12.2020 with the remark "puchh tachh se pata chala yeh dukan kafi samai se band hain. Wapas jay".
e. That petitioner is in dire need of tenanted premises for its own Bonafide use and that petitioner trust is looking after the Jain Temple and people from all over the world visit the temple due to its religious RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 3 of 12 importance and trust is short of accommodation for its devotees and tourists.
3. Hence, the present petition seeking eviction in favour of petitioner and against the respondent thereby directing the respondent to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the shop no.17, 1383-85, S.B. Sarafa Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110 006 as shown in red colour in the site plan.
4. Summons were issued upon the respondent by way of ordinary process which were received back with the report "locked". Thereafter, vide order dated 19.07.2022 application filed by petitioner under Order V Rule 20 CPC for service of respondent by way of publication was allowed. However, despite service of respondent through publication in newspaper "Veer Arjun" on 18.08.2022, none appeared on behalf of respondent and accordingly respondent was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.08.2023 and matter was fixed for ex-parte petitioner evidence. RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 4 of 12 PETITIONER EVIDENCE:
5. In support of their petition, petitioner examined Sh. Sudhir Rakyan as PW-1 whose examination-in-chief was way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/X. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:
a) Ex.PW-1/A (OSR) copy of authorization letter in favour of PW-1 issued by petitioner Trust.
b) Ex.PW-1/B (OSR) copy of scheme of management, rules and regulation and MOA passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 01.09.1983 in suit no.200/1983.
c) Ex.PW-1/C (OSR) photocopy of site plan.
d) Ex.PW-1/D (OSR) copy of rent receipt.
e) Ex.PW-1/E copy of legal notice.
f) Ex.PW-1/F postal receipt.
g) Ex.PW-1/G (colly) (OSR) copy of undelivered envelope.
h) Ex.PW-1/H is suit.
6. PW-1 was duly examined on 29.10.2024 and discharged. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.09.2025, Secretary DLSA was requested to appoint counsel on behalf of unknown LRs. of deceased respondent and accordingly Sh.
RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 5 of 12 Aditya Raina was appointed who cross-examined PW-1 on 20.09.2025 and PW-1 was discharged and plaintiff's evidence was closed on 20.09.2025.
7. I have heard the counsel for petitioner as none appeared for unknown LRs.
of deceased respondent and have perused the record. LAW ON SECTION 22 D.R.C. ACT:-
8. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant provision of Delhi Rent Control Act so that position may be crystal clear: -
"22. Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases.
Where the landlord in respect of any premises is any company or other body corporate or any local authority or any public institution and the premises are required for the use of employees of such landlord or in the case of a public institution, for the furtherance of its activities, then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 or 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
(a) that the tenant to whom such premises were let for use as a residence at a time when he was in the service or employment RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 6 of 12 of the landlord, has ceased to be in such service or employment; or
(b) that the tenant has acted in contravention of the terms, express or implied, under which he was authorized to occupy such premises; or
(c) that any other person is in unauthorized occupation of such premises; or
(d) that the premises are required bona fide by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "public institution" includes any educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary [but does not include any such institution set up by any private trust]."
9. As such, the following are the ingredients of section 22 of DRC Act: -
(I) Petitioner is covered by the definition of the expression "public institution" within the meaning of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
(II) The tenanted premises are required for furtherance of activities of the petitioner.
10. In the present case, PW1 deposed that petitioner is a charitable trust. That the scheme of management, rules and regulations and MOA have been formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 01.09.1983 in suit no. 200/1983. The petitioner has placed on record the scheme management, rules and regulations and MOA, which is Ex.PW-1/B (OSR). It is further deposed that petition is a religious RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 7 of 12 endowment and temple was constructed at the premises many centuries back. That petitioner is owner of tenanted premises which is run through trust by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
11. In case titled as Govind Ram vs Delhi Pinjrapole Society (Regd.) decided on 21 October, 2021, it was held by the Hon'ble Court that, "14. In the case of Chuni Lal (supra), one of the grounds on which the respondent university had applied for eviction of the appellant tenant under Section 22 of the Act was that the premises were required bonafide by it for the furtherance of its activities. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the provision of residential accommodation to the staff may not itself be the object for which the university was established but it is a necessary activity which the university has to undertake if the staff is to perform its duties efficiently, therefore, eviction of the appellant tenant by the respondent university must be regarded as being for furtherance of its activities within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that use of the word "for" before the expression "furtherance of its activities" makes the expression wider than it would be if the word "in" had been used in place of the word "for", so if it is assumed that the provision of quarters is not an essential step in furtherance of the activities of the university, still it may be necessary for furtherance of its activities.
RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 8 of 12
15. In the case of Badri (supra) while dealing with Section 17 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952, which is pari materia to Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held thus:
"6. .... The explanation which uses the word "includes" does not give exhaustively the connotation of "public institution". As observed by the full bench of the Allahabad High Court in Darbari Lal & Ors. vs Smt. Dharanwati, the word "include" is very liberally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute and when it is so used these words or phrases must be considered as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. It seems that the term "public institution" as first occurring in Section 17 of the Act refers to a public institution as organized activity created or established by law or public or authority while when it is used for the second time as well as in the explanation it may be taken to include also the properties like a college or library etc belonging to an institution.""
12. Since entire testimony of petitioner has gone unrebutted, there is no reason to disbelieve.
RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 9 of 12
13. PW1 further deposed that respondent was in possession of the tenanted premises and paid last rent till 22.04.2006. Thereafter, no rent was paid to the petitioner. That the tenanted premises has been lying locked for past more than 20 years and respondent has expired and is in dilapidated condition which requires urgent repair and maintenance.
14. Further that the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 23.12.2020 for handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises via speed post on 24.12.2020 which returned back with envelope dated 26.12.2020 with the remark "puchh tachh se pata chala yeh dukan kafi samai se band hain".
15. Petitioner has placed on record copy of legal notice which is Ex. PW-1/E along with its postal receipt Ex.PW-1/F. also placed on record copy of undelivered envelope with postal remark (Ex.PW-1/G OSR).
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Madan and Co. Vs Waszir Jaivir Chand AIR 1989 SC 630 held that when a legal notice is sent through post at the correct address and is returned due to non-availability RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 10 of 12 of the addressee, it is presumed to have been delivered to the addressee under section 27 of the General Clauses Act. It was held that all that a landlord can do to comply with the provision of sending notice is to post a prepaid registered letter containing the tenant's correct address and once the letter is sent, he has no control over it. Therefore, in the present case, service of notice of demand in the manner as provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has also been proved by the petitioner.
17. Since the respondent never appeared even after due service and has not led any evidence to rebut the documentary and oral testimony of the petitioner, the testimony of PW-1 remains uncontroverted and unchallenged. Nothing adverse came out in the cross-examination of PW-1 as well. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the petitioner that petitioner is a charitable trust and need tenanted premises for Bonafide use for furtherance of its activities. CONCLUSION:
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled proposition of law, this court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has satisfied all the RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 11 of 12 ingredients of Section 22 of D.R.C. Act in respect of shop/property bearing no.17, 1383-85, S.B. Sarafa Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006 as shown in red color in the site plan [Ex.PW-1/C (OSR)]. Hence, eviction petition filed by petitioner against the respondent under section 22 of the DRC Act is allowed.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.01.21 (This judgment contains 12 pages and 15:49:40 +0530 each page has been signed by me) ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Divya Gupta) Today i.e. on 21.01.2026 ARC-02 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi RC ARC No.514/2021 Shri Jain Sweitamna Temples v. Laxman Prasad Pg 12 of 12