Delhi District Court
Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad (Regd.) vs Sh. Darshan Khurana on 19 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH, ADDL. RENT
CONTROLLER (E), KKD COURT, DELHI.
RE262/06
(Case I.D. No. 02402C0275712004)
Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad (Regd.)
Through its President
at 2/24, Geeta Colony
Delhi110031. .....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Darshan Khurana
S/o not known
Shop no.4 in
property no.F9/10, Mandir Marg,
In Lovely Public School premises
Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051 .....Respondent
Date of filing of petition : 23/04/1999
Date of argument : 05/02/2011
Date of Judgment : 19/02/2011
Petition u/s 22 of DRC Act
JUDGMENT: RE262/06 Page 1 of 13
1. The facts leading to decide this case afresh that earlier this petition was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 23/2/04. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order and the court of Ld. ARCT disposed off the appeal and remand back the case with direction to allow the petitioner to lead the additional evidence thereafter additional evidence has been led by not only petitioner but also respondent.
2. This is a petition u/s 22 of DRC Act filed by Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad (Regd.) through its President (hereinafter called petitioner) against Sh. Darshan Khurana (hereinafter called respondent) in respect of one Shop no.4 in property bearing no.F9/10, Mandir Marg, in Lovely Public School premises, Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached (hereinafter called tenanted premises).
3. Petitioner amended his petition vide order dated 21/3/2000. The facts narrated in it that petitioner is a registered society under the Society Registration Act, 1816 and running an educational institution. It is further alleged that petitioner society run various schools i.e. Lovely Public Sr. Sec. School, Lovely Public School, Lovely Public Middle School, Lovely Public Primary School, Lovely Public Playway School, Lovely Public English School and Lovely Public Teachers Training RE262/06 Page 2 of 13 School in east district Delhi at Krishna Nagar, Priyadarshinin Vihar, Geeta Colony and New Layalpur. It is further alleged that previous owner/landlord has let out the tenanted premises to respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.200/p.m. excluding electricity charges but the rent was subsequently enhanced upto Rs.1200/p.m. w.e.f. 1996.
4. It is further alleged that petitioner society received requests from the Head Mistress of Lovely Public School at F9/10, Krishna Nagar regarding shortage of accommodation in school for computer room, music room, administrative office and staff room. It is further alleged that school has only 21 rooms available whereas total requirement of accommodation is of 34 rooms as the total strength of students is 680 and therefore shop of respondent required bonafidely. It is further alleged that other four tenants occupied different shops in the premises have already vacated but respondent has failed to vacate the tenanted premises despite request of petitioner hence the present petition filed.
5. Respondent also filed written statement to the of amended petition wherein he raised preliminary objections that petitioner is not a duly registered society and he has no right to file the present petition so petitioner is taking undue advantage of Section 22 DRC Act. It is further RE262/06 Page 3 of 13 alleged that respondent has not obtained the permission from the competent authority u/s 19 of Slum Area Improvement and Maintaining Act (hereinafter called the Slum Act). It is further alleged that petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises and the present petition filed without any cause of action. On merit respondent denied the rate of rent of Rs.1200/p.m. He further alleged that he took the premises on rent from Satvinder Singh and no letter of attornment has been received by him. It is further stated that petitioner is not a public institution as it is not a registered society.
6. Respondent also took additional pleas in his written statement that the property in dispute was original taken by the respondent. Later on his brother surrender his tenancy right thereafter his son became the joint tenant in the premises but he has not impleaded as necessary party. It is further alleged that institution of petitioner is neither registered nor recognized by any authority including CBSE and this fact has been concealed by the petitioner hence petition be dismissed .
7. Petitioner filed replication wherein he denied the allegations of respondent made in the written statement and reiterated the facts stated in the petition.
8. In support of its case, petitioner examined Sh. R.P. Malik, RE262/06 Page 4 of 13 president of petitioner society as PW1 and Ms. Poonam Arora head mistress of Lovely Public School, Krishan Nagar, Delhi as PW2 whereas respondent has examined himself as RW1 and Praveen Kumar Sharma, UDC from office of Commissioner of Industries/society as RW2.
9. I have heard the argument of ld. counsels for parties and also perused the written arguments placed by the parties and the material available on record.
10. Before dealing this case on merit, I shall dispose off the issues of respondent raised by way of preliminary objections in his written statement that petitioner has not obtained the permission from the competent authority u/s 19 of Slum Act. Respondent has not led any evidence to the effect that the area in which the tenanted premises is situated belongs to slum area and further that a necessary permission of competent authority u/s 19 of Slum Act is required to file the petition u/s 22 DRC Act. Admittedly it is a petition under bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises by the public institution for the furtherance of its activity. There is no evidence on record which suggest that area where tenanted premises is situated is slum area. Under these circumstances, no permission of competent authority is required to file the present petition.
11. The other objections of respondent that petitioner is not a RE262/06 Page 5 of 13 duly registered society and petitioner has no right to file the petition. In this regard, petitioner examined society president as PW1 who deposed that Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad is a registered society under the Society Registration Act Ex.PW1/A. He also produced memorandum and article of association Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that society registered under the income tax as a public institution u/s 12 (A) of Income Tax Act. Copy of same is Es.PW1/C. He also alleged that society also exempted for payment of income tax u/s 80 G of Income Tax Act. Copy of same is Ex.PW1/D. Nothing material came on record in the lengthy crossexamination of PW1 to the effect that petitioner society is not a registered society and he has no right to file the present petition. Further respondent also exempted Praveen Kumar Sharma, UDC of Commissioner of Industries as RW1 who testified that petitioner society is a registered society under Society Registration Act since 22/4/73. Certificate of registration is Ex.PW1/A. RW2 also testified that petitioner society is neither registered as public trust nor a private trust but it is registered under Society Registration Act. It is clear from the testimony of RW2 & PW1 that petitioner society is a registered society in Society Registration Act which is exempted for income tax u/s 80 G of Income Tax Act. In view of this discussion, it stands proved that petitioner is a RE262/06 Page 6 of 13 registered society and he has every right to file the petition.
12. The another objection of the respondent that petitioner neither the owner nor landlord of tenanted premises. It is an admitted case of parties that the tenanted premises was let out to respondent by earlier owner Satvinder Singh on a monthly rent of Rs.200/p.m.. PW1 specifically deposed that property comprises tenanted premises was purchased by the petitioner society vide saledeed dated 12/10/94 Ex.PW1/E. PW1 further deposed that respondent was called by the petitioner to inform about the purchase of property and he was requested to pay the rent to the petitioner society thereafter respondent started paying rent to petitioner society. Rent receipts were also issued and even the rent was also acknowledged by the petitioner through money order Ex.PW1/F to Ex.PW1/H. This testimony of PW1 has not been disputed by the respondent. Further respondent being RW1 admitted that he has been paying the rent to petitioner regularly since October 1994 by way of money order or against the rent receipts. Further from the definition of landlord u/s 2(e) DRC Act, it is clear that landlord is a person who is receiving rent in respect of the premises on his own account or is entitled to receive rent in respect of any premises on his own account. As discussed above, there is no dispute that petitioner is receiving rent in RE262/06 Page 7 of 13 respect of the tenanted premises in its own account. Under these circumstances, the fact that the petitioner is the landlord of the suit premises stands proved.
13. Respondent also alleged that the present petition has been filed by petitioner with a view to harass him so it is a misuse of provision u/s 22 of DRC Act as petitioner is not a public institution. In this regard, the President of petitioner society Sh. R.P. Malik as PW1 deposed that petitioner is a public education institution and it run in the name and style of Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad and same is registered under Society Registration Act vide certificate Ex.PW1/A. PW1 also deposed that petitioner society filed similar petitions for eviction of other tenants from the premises of the petitioner society claiming public institution and the said petitions were allowed vide judgment Ex.PW1/T, U, V & W. The respondent on other hand tried to bring on record that petitioner is not a public trust so he examined RW2 in his support. Admittedly the respondent has not cross examined PW1 to the effect that earlier petitions of petitioner were allowed being public institution. It is also not disputed that petitioner run various education institutions including in the premises in question so the petitioner society which open the schools for public at large is a public institution.
RE262/06 Page 8 of 13
14. Now coming to the bonafide requirement of petitioner, it is alleged by the respondent that petitioner does not require the tenanted premises bonafidly for the furtherance of its activity as petitioner society already achieved aim and objectives. Respondent further alleged that petitioner manipulated and concocted the plan to oust the respondent from the tenanted premises.
15. In this regard, petitioner society's president Sh. R.P. Malik, as PW1 deposed that he has been authorized to file the petition on behalf of the petitioner in the resolution passed by the society. He placed the minutes of meeting dated 24/12/98 Ex.PW1/M. PW1 further deposed that he received the letter of head mistress of Lovely Public School, F9/10 11 at Krishna Nagar Ex.PW1/N wherein head mistress disclosed the shortage of accommodation in school. PW1 further deposed that he being the president of society made endorsement on letter Ex.PW1/N. PW1 further deposed that he again received the letter of head mistress dated 17/07/98 Ex.PW1/O wherein she reiterated the problem of shortage of accommodation. PW1 further deposed that the letter of head mistress were forwarded to the secretary of society. PW1 further deposed that the requirement of school was found to be bonafide and therefore the shop in question is bonafidly required for the furtherance of activity of school. RE262/06 Page 9 of 13 PW1 further deposed that request was made to respondent to vacate the tenanted premises but he refused Ex.PW1/R. PW1 also proved the site plan of tenanted premises Ex.PW1/S.
16. PW2 Smt. Poonam Arora, the head mistress of school deposed that she is the head mistress in Lovely Public School, Krishna Nagar branch since 1996 which is run and managed by Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad. She further deposed that in the year 1999, she experienced acute shortage of accommodation in school so she informed about the shortage of accommodation to management of the school in writing by letter dated 06/05/98 Ex.PW1/N. She further deposed that she was directed by the president of parishad to make arrangements for his personal visit vide his endorsement on letter Ex.PW1/N so she arranged the visit of president on 05/07/98. PW2 further deposed that President of society visited the school thereafter she again written a letter dated 17/07/98 for shortage of accommodation Ex.PW1/O. She further deposed that she received a note dated 27/07/98 from Sh. O.P. Hans, Secretary of society alongwith the letter Ex.PW1/O. She further deposed that there were strength of 680 students and there is requirement of 23 class rooms against the available class rooms 21 as stated in the letter Ex.PW1/P. RE262/06 Page 10 of 13 PW2 further deposed that in the year 2000, 3 shops were vacated by the other tenants so 2 shops were converted into office of head mistress and 1 shop was converted into toilet.
17. The respondent has put specific suggestion to PW1 that petitioner society does not require the tenanted premises for the furtherance of any activity however in collusion with head mistress, petitioner society issued letter Ex.PW1/N, Ex.PW1/O, Ex.PW1/P only with a view to get the tenanted premises vacated. Petitioner society later on examined the head mistress of school Ms. Poonam Arora as PW2. Despite lengthy cross examination of PW2, respondent has failed to brought any evidence to the effect that she issued letter Ex.PW1/N, Ex.PW1/O and Ex.PW1/P, in collusion with petitioner society to get the tenanted premises vacated. On the other hand, PW2 specifically deposed that she had sent the letter Ex.PW1/N regarding acute shortage of accommodation in school by her own observation as she felt the shortage of accommodation in April 1998. PW2 also testified in her cross examination that they want this accommodation for the purpose of computer room and same can also be used for administrative staff room.
18. Further PW2 specifically deposed that premises no.F9/13 and F9/14 were taken on rent. The premises F9/13 has only three rooms RE262/06 Page 11 of 13 out of which two are being used as class room and one is used as art craft room whereas premises no. F9/12, Krishna Nagar comprises 3 big rooms, one room each on the ground floor,first floor and second floor. The room of ground floor is being used as sports room, first floor room is converted into class room and second floor room is being used as library cumactivity hallcummusic room and the third floor of the tenanted premises is being used as class room. PW2 also deposed that the requirement of class room was fulfilled however other requirement such as staff room, computer room etc. as mentioned in Ex.PW1/P could not be fulfilled and the tenanted premises is required bonafidly.
19. It is clear from the testimony of PW1 and PW2 that PW2 being head mistress of school, wrote the letter Ex.PW1/N and Ex.PW1/O to president of society PW1 regarding acute shortage of accommodation in school. PW1 visited the school premises in response to the letter of PW2 and found the shortage of accommodation thereafter PW1 forwarded the letter to secretary of society who recommended the legal action if respondent failed to vacate the premises. The plea of respondent that after filing the petition, respondent arranged certain premises and therefore there is no shortage of accommodation in the school. The petitioner has explained that the requirement of class room was fulfilled RE262/06 Page 12 of 13 however requirement pertains to staff room, computer room could not be fulfilled.
20. In view of aforesaid discussion, petitioner has successfully proved on record that tenanted premises is required bonafidly by it being the public institution for furtherance of its activities and accordingly petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, an eviction order is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of shop no.4 in property no.F9/10, Mandir Marg, in Lovely Public School premises Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051 most specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed to the petition.
(Announced in the open (Ravinder Singh)
court on 19/02/2011) Addl. Rent Controller(E)
KKD Court, Delhi.
RE262/06 Page 13 of 13