Delhi District Court
Shri Raja Ram Yadav vs Shree Sanatan Dharma Sabha (Regd.) on 20 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCT No. 35/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-004541-2019
In re:
Shri Raja Ram Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwati Ram Yadav
R/o Quarter No. 8,
Sanatan Dharma Mandir (Lal Mandir)
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Appellant
Versus
Shree Sanatan Dharma Sabha (Regd.)
Through its Secretary/Authorised Representative
Lal Mandir, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Respondent
AND
RCT No. 36/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-004515-2019
In re:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta
S/o Shri Sat Narayan Gupta
of M/s. Shakun Store,
Shop No.7, in Lal Mandir,
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Appellant
Versus
Shree Sanatan Dharma Sabha (Regd.)
Through its Secretary/Authorised Representative
Lal Mandir, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Respondent
RCT Nos. 35/2019; 36/2019; 37/2019; 38/2019' & 39/2019 Page 1 of 8
AND
RCT No. 37/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-004512-2019
In re:
Shri Jivesh Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal Sharma
Shop No.6, in Lal Mandir,
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Appellant
Versus
Shree Sanatan Dharma Sabha (Regd.)
Through its Secretary/Authorised Representative
Lal Mandir, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Respondent
AND
RCT No. 38/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-004513-2019
In re:
1. Shri Rajesh Kumar
2. Sh. Naresh Kumar
Both S/o of Late Shri Sant Lal,
Joint Tenants in Shop No.5,
in Lal Mandir, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Appellants
Versus
Shree Sanatan Dharma Sabha (Regd.)
Through its Secretary/Authorised Representative
Lal Mandir, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Respondent
RCT Nos. 35/2019; 36/2019; 37/2019; 38/2019' & 39/2019 Page 2 of 8
AND
RCT No. 39/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-004514-2019
In re:
1. Shri Narayan
S/o Late Sh. Siya Saran
2. Sh. Baij Nath (Not Traceable)
S/o Late Sh.Shri Siya Saran
Through his son Sh. Vijay
Both Joint Tenants in Shop No.4,
In Lal Mandir, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Appellants
Versus
Shree Sanatan Dharma Sabha (Regd.)
Through its Secretary/Authorised Representative
Lal Mandir, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 . . . . . . Respondent
Date of filing appeals : 06.06.2019
Date of hearing arguments : 15.03.2021
Date of Judgment : 20.03.2021
Appearances:
Mr. Amit Sehti, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
1. This common judgment shall decide the above-noted five appeals, which have been preferred separately by the appellants/tenants under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, RCT Nos. 35/2019; 36/2019; 37/2019; 38/2019' & 39/2019 Page 3 of 8 1958, as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act'), whereby they have assailed the impugned order/common judgment dated 15.05.2019 passed by Sh. Rajinder Singh, the then Ld. Sr. Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, (West), THC, Delhi, who has been pleased to pass eviction orders with regard to the respective premises held by the appellants/tenants under Section 22 of the DRC Act. The aforesaid appeals raise common question of law and fact and can be very conveniently disposed off altogether, without prejudice to any of the parties.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner Society is identical in each of the eviction petition except in so far as the tenancy premises comprised in the whole of the property. It claims that it is a Registered Society registered under the Indian Societies Act, having its office at Shree Sanatan Dharm Mandir (Regd.), Lal Mandir, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, and engaged in religious as well as charitable activities like holding prayers, yoga classes and religious discourses besides running a Charitable Dispensary; and it was the case of the petitioner Society that with the passage of time number of devotees coming to the Temple/subject property have increased and so also the patients, who report to their charitable medical clinic. It was the case of the petitioner Society that the Doctors are finding it difficult to accommodate large volume of patients/devotees, for want of adequate space and/or cabins; and that it was difficult for them to operate from very small cabins besides the fact that there is hardly any parking space. It was stated that on the left side of the temple, there is RCT Nos. 35/2019; 36/2019; 37/2019; 38/2019' & 39/2019 Page 4 of 8 common passage for Smt. Gomti Devi Thakar Dass Memorial Charitable Trust Clinic and State Bank of Patiala and the people visiting these places find it difficult to park their vehicles, which causes traffic- jam. Thus, the case of the petitioner society is that it bonafidely requires the tenancy premises in question from the appellants/tenants for running its activities including charitable medical services.
3. Suffice to state that each of the appellants/tenants contested the eviction petitions and denied the case of the petitioner society i.e. the respondent herein. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned Judgment dated 15.05.2019 found that petitioner Society has been able to prove its case within the scope and ambit of Section 22 of the DRC Act and accordingly eviction order was passed in all the five eviction petitions against each of the appellants/tenants with regard to their respective portions in the property. It is suffice to state here that the grounds on which eviction was sought by the petitioner Society were common to each of the petitions and so also defence by each of the appellants/tenants.
DECISION
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record including the trial Court record, at the outset, I find that the impugned common judgment/order dated 15.05.2019 cannot be sustained in law. The reason for such decision is not far to seek. Perusal of the record in each of the eviction petitions would show that after the pleadings were complete, the matter was posted for recording evidence of the petitioner but then one fine day the ld. Trial Court RCT Nos. 35/2019; 36/2019; 37/2019; 38/2019' & 39/2019 Page 5 of 8 decided that the eviction petitions can be tried in a summary manner and based on the pleadings on record, it proceeded to pass the impugned judgment/ order.
5. In order to appreciate the real controversy in question, it would be expedient to refer to Section 22 of the DRC Act, which provides as under:-
"22. Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases - Where the landlord in respect of any premises is any company of 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 of the landlord, has ceased to be in such service or employment; or
(b) that the tenant has acted in contravention of terms, express or implied, under which he was authorised ot occupy such premises; or
(c) that any other person is in unauthorised occupation of such premises; or
(d) that the premises are required bond fide by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities."
6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in so far as the present appeals are concerned , the 'public institution' has to show that it requires the premises bonafidely for furtherance of its activities and no doubt running of charitable dispensary is also included in the definition of 'public institution/charitable institution'.
RCT Nos. 35/2019; 36/2019; 37/2019; 38/2019' & 39/2019 Page 6 of 8However, I am failing to find any thing in Section 22 of the DRC Act which provides for summary disposal of the matter in a manner in which it has been done by the ld. Trial Court. The question is: what procedure has to be adopted in such a case. The answer lies in Section 37 of the DRC Act further provides as under:-
"37. Procedure to be followed by Controller- (1) No order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Controller under this Act without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the Controller.
(2) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the Controller shall while holding an inquiry in any proceeding before him, follow as far as may be the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence.
(3) In all proceedings before him, the Controller shall consider the question of costs in award such costs to or against any party as the Controller considers reasonable."
7. At the cost of repetition, Section 22 of the DRC Act no where provides that the petition under said provision has to be decided in a summary manner based on the mere pleadings and Section 37 of the DRC Act further exemplifies that the parties are enjoined upon to lead evidence on disputed questions of facts and it is only after the evidence is led in the manner provided by the law and considered by the trial Court that a decision should be arrived at. There is no merit in the submission of the Mr. Vinod Malhotra, learned Counsel for the respondent that the appellants/tenants admitted the case of the petitioner Society that it required the premises in question for its bonafide charitable activities and the Ld Trial Court proceeded under RCT Nos. 35/2019; 36/2019; 37/2019; 38/2019' & 39/2019 Page 7 of 8 Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. There is no such discussion in the impugned judgment. The basic foundation of the case should have been proved by the petitioner Society in the nature of proving site plan, its financial wherewithals and proposed expansion programme and so on. It is pertinent to mention that Section 22 of the DRC Act does not envisage a stringent requirement of tenant seeking 'leave to defend' as provided by Chapter IIIA of the DRC Act either.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeals are allowed and the impugned eviction order dated 15.05.2019 passed in the aforesaid matters are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the ld. Trial Court with directions to allow the parties to lead evidence on the matter in issue and thereafter decide the eviction petitions as per law. The parties are directed to appear before the ld. Trial Court for further proceedings on 01.04.2021, on which date list of witnesses, if any, would be filed besides conducting admission/denial of documents, if any.
9. Trial Court record along-with copy of this Order/Judgment be sent back forthwith to the Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance. A signed photocopy of Judgment be placed in each of the files. The appeal files be consigned to Record Room.
DHARMESH Digitally signed by
DHARMESH SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2021.03.22 14:27:38
+0530
Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA)
on 20th March, 2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge/
Rent Control Tribunal (West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
RCT Nos. 35/2019; 36/2019; 37/2019; 38/2019' & 39/2019 Page 8 of 8