Delhi District Court
Prajapita Brahma Kumari Ishwariya ... vs Jitender Singh on 20 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided Over By : Sh. Bharat Aggarwal
Petition No. : RC ARC 95/2019
CNR No.: DLCT03-000848-2019
Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs.
Jitender Singh
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya
Vishwa Vidyalaya
Through Its
Sh. B. K. Jai Prakash
Manager
r/o Brahma Kumaris, Pandav Bhawan,
25, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Sh. Jitender Singh
s/o Late Sh. Amar Singh
At :- Shop Bearing Pvt. No.4 on ground floor,
At property bearing no. 1708 to 1713,
Pili Kothi, S.P. Mukerjee Marg,
Delhi.
...RESPONDENT
Date of institution : 04.02.2019
Date of order : 20.03.2026
____________________________________________________
Argued by : Mr. Manish Jain, Ld. Counsel
for petitioner.
&
Mr. Sanjeev Sarkar, Ld.
Counsel for respondent.
____________________________________________________
RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 1 of 13
Digitally signed
by BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20
16:46:07 +0530
JUDGMENT:
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') seeking eviction of the respondent from one shop bearing private no.4, Ground floor, property no.1708 to 1713, Pili Kothi, Nahar Shahdat Khan, S.P. Mukharjee Marg, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises') as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property in question is commercial in nature and the same is being used by the respondent for commercial purposes at a monthly rent of Rs.201/- per month, exclusive of electricity and other charges. That the petitioner is the owner / landlord of the shop in question by virtue of gift deed dated 16.08.2012 and the tenanted premises is required for own use of the petitioner. That many followers of the petitioner i.e., Bramhakumaris and Brahmakumars stay during their journey and visit the aashram in question and the property of the petitioner for such purpose is insufficient.
3. It is further stated that the tenanted premises is close to Old Delhi and New Delhi Railway Stations and petitioner requires space for running a clinic for general public. It is stated that the number of guests of the petitioner varies from 50-100 throughout the year and the accommodation available with the petitioner is insufficient and the tenanted premises is best suitable for need of RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 2 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20 16:46:12 +0530 the petitioner for accommodating the persons visiting the aashram of the petitioner.
4. That the petitioner does not have any reasonably suitable accommodation except the property in question and the petition is filed through Mr. Jai Prakash i.e., manager of the petitioner who has been authorized to sign, verify and institute the present eviction petition. It is further stated that relevant permission from the Competent Authority, Slum has been obtained by the petitioner vide order dated 23.08.2012.
5. Accordingly, the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the DRC Act seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises as the tenanted premises are allegedly required for use of the petitioner body.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
6. Summons of the present eviction petition were issued to the respondent vide order dated 05.02.2019 which were served upon him on 27.02.2019. Thereafter, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent on 03.09.2019. Respondent has inter- alia averred that the eviction petition has been filed by a person who has not been duly authorised by the petitioner and without any authority letter.
7. It is further stated that the gift deed dated 16.08.2012 is in favour of Brahmakumari Janki and there is nothing on record to RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 3 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20 16:46:16 +0530 show that she has authorised Sh. B.K. Jai Prakash to file the petition as its manager. It is stated that the father of respondent is in occupation of the premises since 1955 under the name and style of "Union Motor Works".
8. It is further stated that respondent has been duly paying the rent and since the death of Sh. Amar Singh, respondent has remained in uninterrupted possession of the tenanted premises. It is further stated that respondent has never remained in possession of property bearing no.1711. It is further stated that petitioner is a society which has many properties in Delhi itself and across 137 countries. It is denied that petitioner has any paucity of accommodation.
REPLICATION:
9. Thereafter, replication was filed on behalf of petitioner on 31.01.2023 whereby contents of the petition were reiterated and allegations of the respondent in the written statement were denied.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE:
10. In order to prove its case, petitioner examined Sh. B.K. Jai Prakash, manager as PW-1 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A and he relied upon the following documents:
RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 4 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20
16:46:20
+0530
(i) Ex.PW-1/1 (OSR) being the copy of
Divine Constitution of Petitioner;
(ii) Ex.PW-1/2 (OSR) being the copy of gift
deed dated 16.08.2012;
(iii) Ex.PW-1/3 being the site plan;
(iv) Mark-A (colly.) being the rent receipts
dated 19.01.2011 and 16.05.2011;
(v) Ex.PW-1/5 being the certified copy of
order passed by Slum Authority, DUSIB;
(vi) Ex.PW-1/6 being the copy of legal notice dated 29.04.2016 alongwith original postal receipt; and
(vii) Ex.PW-1/7 (OSR) being the photocopy of reply dated 07.04.2018 to the aforesaid legal notice.
He was cross-examined and discharged on 11.04.2023.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
11. Thereafter, respondent examined himself as RW-1 and he relied upon his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW-1/A. He further relied upon the following documents:
(i) Mark-A, Mark-B, Mark-C and Mark-
D being the receipt no. 10844 dated
RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 5 of 13
Digitally
signed by
BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20
16:46:24
+0530
06.07.1955, receipt no. 10567 dated
04.07.1955, receipt no. 9105/ss/18450 dated 03.11.1955, receipt no. 9105/CBN/7689 and receipt no. 1356; and
(ii) Mark-E being the copy of the sketch of the site of the shop / property bearing no. 1712.
He was cross-examined and discharged on 19.12.2025.
ARGUMENTS:
12. Ld. Counsel for petitioner inter-alia argued that petitioner is entitled to an eviction order as all the ingredients of Section 22 of DRC Act are fulfilled by the petitioner through the evidence of PW-1 and respondent has not been able to raise any meritorious defense. It was further argued that the tenanted property is required by the petitioner for the persons who visit the premises of the petitioner's aashram for their stay. He further argued that the petitioner is not a registered body as it does not accept any donations, etc. and it's registration is not required under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
13. Per-contra, on behalf of the respondent it was argued that respondent has remained in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the property since 1955. It was further argued that the petitioner has failed to file the title documents prior to the gift deed Ex.PW-1/2 and petitioner cannot accept property as a RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 6 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20 16:46:29 +0530 donation in terms of its constitution. Hence, it was argued that the petition must be dismissed as petitioner has no need of the premises in question.
DECISION WITH REASONS:
14. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note that present petition has been filed under Section 22 of the DRC Act, which was introduced to facilitate the public institutions to get their premises vacated from the employees in furtherance of the activities of the institution. For an eviction order to be passed under Section 22 of DRC Act, it is necessary for the petitioner to prove that :-
"(a) The premises were let out to the employee of the public institution/local authority/company/body corporate when he was in service and such employment has ended; or
(b) Such tenant has violated the terms of tenancy; or
(c) Any other person has unauthorizedly occupied the premises; or
(d) Premises are bona-fidely required by the public institution in furtherance of its activities;"
15. Now, the court shall scrutinize the evidence led on record by the parties, in light of their pleadings, to ascertain if the aforesaid ingredients have been proved on record by the petitioner or not.
RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 7 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20 16:46:33 +0530
16. Briefly put, it is the simple case of the petitioner that the tenanted premises are required bonafidely by the petitioner in furtherance of its activities as many followers of the petitioner body stay during their journey in the building in question while visiting the aashram of the petitioner in many parts of the country and the current accommodation is insufficient. It is also the case of the petitioner that since the premises are closely located to the railway stations, petitioner requires the premises bonafidely for opening a clinic for the general public.
17. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a society having its head office at Mount Abu, Rajasthan as such society is exempted from registration under the Rajasthan Registration of Society Act. However, it was clarified during the course of arguments that the petitioner is exempted from registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Bare perusal of the documents placed on record, more specifically Ex.PW-1/1 i.e. divine constitution and bylaws of the petitioner body shows that the and objectives of the petitioner body include spreading moral, ethical, religious and spiritual values and imparting knowledge regarding soul and the mind. One of its objectives is also to educate man and the moral and spiritual interpretation of history and proper understanding of cosmos and cosmic wheel and to impart spiritual and philosophical knowledge regarding the religious scriptures.
18. Article 3 of such constitution of the petitioner body Ex.PW-1/1 is reproduced below for proper understanding of the functions which are carried out by the petitioner:
RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 8 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20 16:46:37 +0530 "Article 3 - Aims and Objects: The aims and objects of this Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya are:
(i) To understand and propagate highest spiritual wisdom that Incorporeal God Shiva is the Supreme Spiritual Father of all human souls and is the source of realizing one universal religion based on the principle of Fatherhood of One God and brotherhood of humankind.
(ii) To spread moral, ethical, religious and spiritual values so that man, by divinizing his character, develops a spiritual outlook so as to be a useful member of the society.
(iii) To educate man to realise that the conscious entity, called 'soul' is different from inert matter and to give him complete knowledge of the soul and mind so that he can lead a lotus-like life.
(iv) To educate men in the moral and spiritual interpretation of history and proper understanding of cosmos and cosmic wheel.
(v) To impart spiritual and philosophical knowledge of the Creator and His creation by propagating the essence of teachings of original Shrimad Bhagwad Gita and other sacred religious scriptures.
(vi) To practice and propagate the Sahaj Raja Yoga or meditation so as to lorge a link with the Creator and to have mental peace and good health and to build better relations with others and to adopt a sympathetic approach and co-
operative attitude towards others.
(vii) To educate man to foster soul-
consciousness and universal brotherhood so as to shake off communal outlook.
(viii) To educate man so as to remove superstitions, blind faith, meaningless rituals and ignorance.
RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 9 of 13
Digitally
signed by
BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20
16:46:41
+0530
(ix) To understand and spread knowledge of methods and practices for attaining long cherished objective of mukti (liberation or salvation) and jeevan mukti (liberation in life or fruition)"
19. Bare perusal of such objectives of the petitioner body shows that one of the functions of the petitioner is to impart spiritual education which is akin to any education institution which can be construed as a "public institution" as described in the explanation of Section 22 of the DRC Act. In the opinion of this court, any body or organization which carries out its functions for general welfare of the public and for promotion of the public object can be construed as a "public institution". Be that as it may, respondent has not raised any objection to the fact that petitioner is not entitled to institute the present petition as a "public institution" under Section 22 of the DRC Act and no argument to that effect was ever raised by the respondent.
20. Bare perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent, more specifically at para 8, itself shows that respondent has admitted his capacity as a tenant in the tenanted premises. It is further pertinent to note that during his cross- examination on 19.12.2025, respondent/RW-1 has specifically admitted that after receipt of notice issued by the petitioner regarding eviction and payment of rent, arrears of rent was paid by him through cheque, however, the petitioner refused the same. Hence, such admissions made by the respondent himself goes a long way to show that respondent has admitted his capacity as that of a tenant in the property in question.
RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 10 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2026.03.20 16:46:46 +0530
21. Be that as it may, respondent has himself relied upon rent receipts showing himself to be a tenant in the tenanted premises and the reply dated 07.04.2018 issued on behalf of the respondent i.e. Ex.PW-1/7 also shows clear admission regarding the status of respondent as a tenant in the property in question.
22. In these circumstances, the argument on behalf of the respondent that petitioner cannot be construed as owner of the property in question by virtue of registered gift deed dated 16.08.2012 Ex.PW-1/2, appears to be bereft of any merit. It is a well settled position of law that tenant has no locus to challenge the ownership of the landlord under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is trite that in proceedings under the DRC Act, petitioner is not required to demonstrate a perfect title over the tenanted property but is only required to show that he is somewhat more than a tenant therein.
23. The other argument advanced on behalf of respondent that petitioner cannot accept any donation in terms of its constitution and hence, the gift deed Ex.PW-1/2 has no value, appears to be not tenable for the simple reason that there is no such recital in the constitution of the petitioner. Even otherwise, mere non- compliance of the terms of the constitution of the petitioner, assuming for the sake of arguments, would not nullify the effect and consequences flowing from the registered gift deed, which has a presumption of its genuineness under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 11 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20 16:46:50 +0530
24. Respondent has also contended that if he is evicted from the tenanted premises, it shall cause great hardship to him given the fact that he has been occupying the said premises for more than 70 years. It is a well settled position of law that comparative hardship which is likely to be caused to the tenant if an eviction order is passed against him is not to be considered in a petition filed under Section 22 of DRC Act. The only relevant factor to be considered is whether the landlord is able to show that the requirements of the provision are fulfilled or not. In the present case, the petitioner has successfully established that there exists landlord- tenant relationship between the parties and that the tenanted premises are required bonafidely and genuinely by the petitioner in furtherance of its activities for benefit of the persons visiting the ashram and opening a clinic for well-being of the general public. Hence, the ingredients of Section 22 of the DRC Act are duly fulfilled in the present case.
25. It was further argued that the petitioner has concealed material facts as the property consists of three storeys and most of the rooms are lying vacant and are in deserted condition. However, it is noticeable that no evidence has been led by the respondent to that effect throughout the trial and respondent has failed to create any doubt over the alleged bonafides expressed by the petitioner in the eviction petition. Be that as it may, when the requirement disclosed by the petitioner is read along with the aims, objectives and functions of the petitioner institution, it becomes amply clear that the tenanted premises are required by the petitioner to further its cause and object.
RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 12 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2026.03.20 16:46:54 +0530 CONCLUSION:
26. In view of the above discussion, an eviction order is hereby passed under Section 22 of the DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of one shop bearing private no.4, Ground floor, property no.1708 to 1713, Pili Kothi, Nahar Shahdat Khan, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan i.e. Ex.PW-1/3 filed alongwith the petition. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by BHARATBHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20 16:46:59 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal) Today i.e. 20.03.2026 ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi Present judgment consists of 13 pages and each page bears my initials.Digitally signed by BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.03.20 16:47:03 +0530 (Bharat Aggarwal) ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 20.03.2026 RC ARC No. 95/19 Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Jitender Singh Page No. 13 of 13