Delhi District Court
Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust vs Prem Chand Jain on 27 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU ASIWAL
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
DLSH030023452021
RC ARC 4/2022
1. Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust
Through its Trustees
2. Shri Sandeep Gupta
3. Shri Pawan Kr. Saraswat
4. Shri S.K. Gupta
5. Shri Ajay Sharma
6. Ms. Vandana Sharma
R/o all Trustees of Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust at:
1935/124, First Floor, Fountain, Delhi-110006.
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. Mr. Prem Chand Jain
Proprietor of M/s Prem Chand Jain & Co.
2. Mr. Adarash Jain
Both R/o :- IX/7005, G. F., Ashok Gali,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
....Respondents
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:08:21
+0530
RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 1/29
ORDER
27.05.2025
1. Leave Declined.
Petitioner Case
2. The petitioners namely Bhatia Janj Ghar (Trust) through its Trustees i.e. (i) Shri Sandeep Gupta, (ii) Shri Pawan Kr. Saraswat, (iii) Shri S.K. Gupta (iv) Shri Ajay Sharma and (v) Ms. Vandana Sharma, R/o all at: 1935/124, First Floor, Fountain, Delhi-110006 have filed the instant eviction petition to oust the respondents tenants namely Mr. Prem Chand Jain and Mr. Adarsh Jain from the tenanted premises IX/7005, Ground Floor, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi known as Bhatia Janj Ghar, Delhi as the same is stated to be required for the bonafide need and requirement of the petitioner No. 1. It is claimed that the tenanted premises - a commercial property measuring 16'6"X7'4" feet approximately was tenanted to the respondents at a monthly rent of Rs.242/- per month excluding electricity and other charges in the year 1985 wherein written agreement was not executed.
3. As to the background of the case, it is averred that petitioner No. 1 is a Trust and petitioner No. 2 to 6 are its Trustees. It is also claimed that petitioner No. 1 is the exclusive owner/ landlord of the entire property bearing No. IX/7005, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. That the specific object and Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:08:27 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 2/29 purpose of the petitioners' Trust is that its movable and immovable properties will be used for religious purposes of Hindu Community and to provide help for needy persons of the society and that the objective of the Trust is enshrined in the Trust deed dated 27.12.1984.
4. It is stated that over the period of time, the Manager and Trustees of petitioner No. 1 have changed and consequently its management also become more efficient. It is claimed that most of the records of the Trust have been lost and that most of the tenants in the property bearing No. IX/7005, Ground Floor, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi had not even paid rent for years.
5. Accordingly, in the year 1999-2000, rent was demanded from the tenants to revive the affairs of the Trust. However, upon non-payment, a petition U/s 14(1)(a) of DRC Act bearing No. RC/ARC 810/2016 titled as Bhatia Janj Ghar Vs. M/s Prem Chand Jain & Co. was preferred. In the aforesaid petition, the Ld. Rent Controller while accepting that the petitioner No. 1 is the landlord of the property allowed the petition on 09.02.2018. However, the tenants availed the benefit of Section 14 (2) of DRC Act and retained possession of premises, thereafter no appeal was preferred against the judgment.
6. Thereafter, the respondents deposited the arrears of rent in the court in the name of the petitioner and also started depositing Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:08:32 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 3/29 monthly rent in the bank account of petitioner No. 1. Similarly, with respect to the other tenants in property No. IX/7005, Ground Floor, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, it is stated that, they are also depositing rent with the court and thereafter in the bank account of petitioner No. 1. It is in pursuance of the rent received from the various tenants that the petitioner No. 1 was able to gain sufficient corpus to attempt to attain its objective.
7. Thereafter, it was mutually decided by the Trustees that to achieve the purpose of the Trust, they shall start a training institute/ center imparting training of stitching and other allied activities to poor, orphans, widows and other needy persons and thereby serving society at large and enabling them to earn a livelihood for themselves. It is claimed that the tenanted premises is located in the biggest readymade garments market in Asia where such type of skills are always required by business community.
8. To further such purpose, a large training center is required for the purpose of keeping large number of sewing machine, cutting machine and tables for ironing and cutting, apart from recruiting teaching an Administrative staff. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 is having only IX/7005, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi to meet its objects and therefore, the tenanted premises is sufficient to achieve the aforesaid purpose.
9. It is also stated that besides the present petition, petitions i.e. Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:08:36 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 4/29
(i) RC ARC 2/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. M/S Bankey Bihari Ji Garments (ii) RC ARC 3/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Anil Kumar Jain, (iii) RC ARC 11/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. M/s Kishan Lal Mata & Sons, (iv) RC ARC 5/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Vijay Gupta, (v) RC ARC 6/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Mr. Narender Kumar Jain, (vi) RC ARC 8/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Virender Kumar Bansal, (vii) RC ARC 9/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Gopal Kishan Verma, (viii) RC ARC 7/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers, (ix) RC ARC 10/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Mr. Bhushan Jain, (x)RC ARC 12/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Vishnu Dayal, (xi) RC ARC 13/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Gopal Kishan Verma have been preferred by the petitioners U/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, and therefore, all the tenanted premises can be collectively used to achieve the objectives of petitioner No. 1.
10.That petitioner No. 1 do not have any other suitable accommodation within Delhi, NCT for its bonafide need.
11.That the petitioners also served Legal notice dated 16.03.2019 to the respondents effectively terminated the tenancy upon the respondents but did not yield any favorable result. Hence the present petition.
Respondent Case
12.Respondents have claimed that the petitioners have no requirement for the tenanted premises and have filed the Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:08:42 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 5/29 present petition malafidely. It is claimed that petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts which are as below:-
12.1 That petitioner No. 1 does not have any legal entity and that petitioner No. 1 is not even active for last more than 30 years and there are no Trustees as on date. That petitioner No. 3-Pawan Kumar Saraswat was shown as attorney of petitioner No. 1 in the previous proceedings U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act titled as RC/ARC 810/2016 titled as Bhatia Janj Ghar Vs. M/s Prem Chand Jain & Co.(hereinafter referred as 'previous litigation') between the parties whereas here he is asserted as one of the Trustees, however, they have not shown how an attorney later became a Trustee of petitioner No. 1.
12.2. It is asserted by the respondents that petitioner No. 3 Pawan Kumar Saraswat has made internal settlement with the previous Trustees of petitioner No. 1 and has taken over the entire properties in his own name in the year 1995-96 i.e. he purchased the property illegally from petitioner No. 1 when petitioner No. 1 was not even existing for more than 30 years.
12.3. It is also asserted by the respondents that the petition itself shows the malafide of the petitioners as address of all the petitioners is stated to be 1935/124, First Floor, Fountain, Delhi-110006 which property is owned by petitioner No. 3.
This factum also goes on to show that petitioner No. 1 does not exist and also has no legal entity.
Digitally signed by CHARUCHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:08:47 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 6/29 12.4. It is also stated that the resolution filed by the petitioners bears no consequences as said document does not bear signatures of any of the supposed Trustees and it is only petitioner No. 3 who has signed it which goes on to show that it is petitioner No. 3 who is running the entire show and it is for his benefit that the tenanted premises is sought to be vacated.
12.5. That the instant petition was affirmed before an Oath Commissioner on 06.12.2021, however, the GPA executed in favour of petitioner No. 3 is dated 16.12.2021 and attested by notary public on 16.12.2021 and therefore, it is proved that no valid attorney is created in favour of petitioner No. 3 to institute the petition. Further, that the GPA dated 16.12.2021 has no authenticity as it does not bear any photographs of the executors and the attorney and does not even have the identity proof of the executors.
12.6. That the petition also does not disclose if petitioner No. 1 is a public or a private Trust and the kind of activities supposed to be carried out by petitioner No. 1. Further, the petitioners have also not filed any documents to establish that petitioner No. 1 remained active for the past 30 years and carried out activities as per their aims and objectives.
12.7. That petitioners have concealed a material fact that they have sold off a property bearing No. A-193, Derawal Nagar, Delhi of petitioner No. 1 by way of a sale deed on Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:08:51 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 7/29 27.09.2012. It is further averred that a Trust property cannot be sold without taking permission of a District Judge and that it has been sold off illegally. It is stated that had the need of the petitioners been bonafide, the aforesaid property would not have been sold.
12.8. That the instant petition is per se not maintainable U/s 14(1) (e) of DRC Act as said section can only be invoked in case of an individual, however, herein the bonafide need is stated to be that of a Trust and in such a situation Section 22 of DRC Act is applicable and on this ground alone the petition is defective.
12.9. That the area where the tenanted premises is located is Asia's biggest readymade garments market and training center can only be created in the tenanted premises after demolition of the existing structure and such demolition is the sole purpose of petitioner No. 3 to raise a new building and take over the entire property.
12.10. That the site plan filed with the petition is incorrect as the actual size of the tenanted premises is more than 190 sq. yards approximately with two sides open and one such opening is on main Ashok Gali and the other in Prem Gali.
13.All in all therefore, it is averred that the respondents must be allowed an opportunity to establish its case by leading evidence to show that the petitioners have moved the present Digitally signed CHARU ASIWAL by CHARU ASIWAL 19:08:59 Date: 2025.05.27 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 8/29 petition without any justifiable cause.
14.The petitioners have refuted all arguments of the respondents as stated in its application seeking leave to defend by way of filing a counter affidavit. Likewise, the respondents in its rejoinder as well denied all the reiterations made by the petitioners.
15.Case file perused. Submissions considered.
Findings and Analysis
16.In order to succeed in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ('DRC') the landlord is required to establish three conditions:-
i. There must be a relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant ii. The tenanted premises must be bonafidely required by the landlord either for himself or for his family members iii. There is no other alternate suitable accommodation available with the landlord.
17.The nub of the issue in the entire leave to defend application has been enumerated in paragraph 12 above which primarily circles around the assertion that petitioner No. 3 is the actual show runner and rest of the petitioners/ Trustees are merely decoys and, that the petitioner No. 1 is a Trust for namesake as the Trust has not done anything as per its objectives for the past thirty years and that the present petition itself is defective Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:09:08 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 9/29 being filed U/s 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act instead of Section 22 of DRC Act.
18.It is no longer res integra that the petitioner / landlord in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) DRC has merely to show that he is something more than a tenant. Thus, the existence of landlord tenant relationship, is to be ascertained by applying the well settled and time tested propositions that
(i) for the purpose of establishing landlord-tenant relationship, the onus of proof on the landlord is not akin to a title suit; (ii) as long as it is established that a landlord has a better title than that of a tenant, a tenant cannot resist a plea of existence of a landlord tenant relationship.
19.With regard to the jural relationship between the parties, it is an admitted position that the respondent is a tenant of the petitioner as the factum of payment of rent to petitioner No. 1 has been specifically pleaded in the leave to defend. Further, respondent has also admitted that after previous litigation U/s 14 (1)(a) of DRC Act, respondent herein has been regularly paying rent to petitioner No. 1 and therefore, the element of attornment of petitioner No. 1 as a landlord is completely undisputed. In view of the same therefore, this Court finds favor with the assertions of the petitioner on this count.
20.With regards testing the bonafide need of the petitioner to obtain possession of the tenanted premises, it is well settled that the Court must presume the bonafide requirement of the Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date: 2025.05.27 19:09:15 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 10/29 landlord. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,"[(1998) 8 SCC 119] observed that:
"14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
21.The landlord is only required to show that the requirement of the tenanted premises is a bonafide requirement and not merely a whimsical or a fanciful desire by him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of "Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal"[(2001) 5 SCC 705] observed that:-
"15...The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL 19:09:22 +0530 Date: 2025.05.27 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 11/29 be bona fide which is intended to avoid a mere whim or desire. The "bona fide requirement"
must be in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire."
22.In the present case as well, once the landlord has stated that he requires the tenanted premises for a particular use, the Court is required to believe the statement to be true and genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical.
23.The assertion against the bonafide requirement of the landlord as noted under paragraph 12 of this order shall be considered in the succeeding paragraphs in chronological order.
23.1. To refute the assertion that petitioner No. 1 does not have any legal entity, petitioners have produced Trust deed dated 27.12.1984 by which five authors namely Sh. Prem Prakash Bhatia, Sh. Bhagwan Dass Bhatia, Sh. Ganesh Dass Bhatia, Sh. Tulsi Dass Bhatia and Sh. Krishan Chand Bhatia have reposed the tenanted premises in addition to others on the strength of Will dated 04.05.1964 (probated on 05.05.1966), for charitable purposes in favour of petitioner No. 1. Said document/ Trust deed appears to be signed by all the five authors of the Trust deed. Further, the said document/ Trust deed also names five Trustees as well as the aims and objectives of the Trust. Nowhere in the leave to defend application has the respondent refuted the creation of Trust Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:09:27 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 12/29 deed dated 27.12.1984 and nowhere have they pleaded that the authors of the Trust did not have locus to create the Trust deed or to repose the property for any charitable purpose, therefore, merely not producing the documentation for entry and exit of present and past Trustees, cannot considered to be so fatal as to deny existence of the Trust. Furthermore, the attornment of petitioner No. 1 as landlord by respondents is sufficient, and therefore, internal arrangement of petitioner No. 1 cannot be made subject of scrutiny by a tenant in proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act. Therefore merely stating that the Trust does not exist is of no consequence.
23.2. Secondly, the respondent has also vehemently contended that the Trust has not done anything to achieve its aims and objectives for the past 30 years, said assertion is also not found to be an appealing one as it appears that the respondent intends to take advantage of its own wrong as the business being carried out by the respondent in the tenanted premises also does not fall within the parameter of the aims and objectives of the Trust. If the instant assertion of the respondent is accepted to be true on its face then it would also mean that the petitioners would never be in the position to run any activity in the tenanted premises in alignment with the objectives of the Trust if the respondent continues to use the premises for its own business.
Further, even for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the petitioner No. 1 has not carried out any Trust related activity in the tenanted premises for more than three decades, Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:09:34 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 13/29 then the respondent was necessarily required to plead the provision of law or any judicial pronouncement to the effect that continued lack of activity of a Trust would ipso facto lead to the assumption that the Trust has ceased to exist.
Further, it is also observed that the the parties are at loggerheads at least since the year 2000 regarding the tenanted premises when the previous litigation U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act was instituted between the parties wherein the petitioner herein had sought vacation of the tenanted premises on the ground of non-payment of rent, it was only due to the benefit of Section 14 (2) of DRC Act that the property remained in the possession of the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners are attempting to get the tenanted premises vacated to run the Trust activities at least for a good quarter of a century.
23.3. Respondents have also vehemently resisted the claim of the petitioners on the grounds that it is only petitioner No. 3/Sh. Pawan Kumar Saraswat who is the actual brains behind the entire petition as the property is sought to be vacated for his personal benefit as he has made internal arrangements to the effect that the previous Trustees have sold off the property to him. The said objection of the respondents is found to be completely toothless as except for assertion nothing material has been brought on record to make this version believable.
The only aspect that has been raised by the respondents with some material is that in the previous round of litigation U/s 14 (1)(a) of DRC Act, petitioner No. 3 had deposed as an Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:09:39 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 14/29 attorney of petitioner No. 1 Trust and in the present proceedings he has suddenly become a Trustee. To refute the said objection, petitioners have pleaded that at the time the previous litigation was going on, petitioner No. 3 was indeed only an attorney, however, later on he was accepted as one of the Trustees. To support such averments, petitioners have relied on extracts of meeting of the Trustees dated 05.01.2019 wherein petitioner No. 3/ Pawan Kumar Saraswat has been named as a Trustee by the rest. This document itself is sufficient to show that subsequently petitioner No. 3 was accepted as a Trustee of petitioner No. 1 Trust. In such a situation, respondents were obligated to show that an attorney can later on never be accepted as a Trustee, however, no averments to that effect have been made.
Furthermore, respondents have raised doubt as to the intention of petitioner No. 3 by claiming that he is guilty of making illegal arrangements regarding the properties of the Trust as far back as year 1995-96. Firstly, once again the instant assertion is merely an averment and nothing more as there is nothing on record to make it believable. In addition, it is seen that the petitioners have filed the pleadings i.e. its petition as well as the written statement filed by the respondents in the previous litigation. On perusal of the petition as well as the written statement, it is found that even in those proceedings, petitioner No. 3/ Pawan Kumar Saraswat was named as an attorney of petitioner No. 1, however, the instant objection that in the year 1995-96 petitioner No. 3 took over the properties of the Trust has not Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:09:43 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 15/29 +0530 been pleaded by the respondents for reasons best known to them. If the respondent raises grave doubts as to the constitution and functioning of the Trust, reliable material shaking the credibility and intention of the Trustees was required, however, leave to defend is silent on that aspect.
23.4. Next objection, is that in the memo of parties, address of all the petitioners is mentioned as 1935/124, First Floor Fountain Delhi-110006 and that the said property is owned by petitioner No. 3 and therefore, this itself is sufficient to show that all the supposed Trustees are under the control of petitioner No. 3. Once again, the aforesaid assertion is unsupported without anything material to show that the aforesaid property is owned by petitioner No. 3, with these many unsupported assertions, respondents were at least required to plead the source of knowledge about petitioner No. 3 and his property, however, the leave to defend remains elusive on the aspect. Rather, in reply to leave to defend, petitioners have clarified that the said property is owned by one M/s Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. And the petitioner No. 1 Trust is a tenant in the aforesaid property. To substantiate the said assertion, petitioners have relied on the cross examination of PW-1 in the deposition during the trial in previous litigation wherein the said aspect has been covered by the Ld. Trial Court. It does appear that the same assertion has been made by the respondents in the previous litigation i.e. RC/ARC 810/2016 titled as Bhatia Janj Ghar Vs. M/s Prem Chand Jain & Co. as well even then the Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:09:47 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 16/29 petition U/s 14 (1)(a) of DRC Act was allowed in favour of the petitioners herein. Therefore, only for the reasons that all petitioners have mentioned a single address cannot deemed to be a triable issue,.
23.5. The next objection to the bonafide of the petitioners is that the petition is defective in the sense that the resolution accompanied with the petition is not signed by rest of the Trustees, and therefore, the present petition is non-est. On perusal of the document which is titled as "extract of the meeting of Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust held on 05.01.2019 at office of the Trust". It is found that the said document has been created by all the Trustees of petitioner No. 1 in its meeting held on 05.01.2019 and they have resolved that the tenanted premises is required for opening a training center and therefore necessary legal action shall be initiated against all the tenants of property No. IX/7005, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The document is admittedly signed by only petitioner No. 3. The title of the document itself is sufficient to show that the document is only an excerpt of the meeting held on 05.01.2019 and not the minute book itself. The said excerpt is certified to be true by petitioner No. 3. Here, it is not the claim of respondents that the said meeting never took place rather the objection of the respondents is only to the extent of the aforesaid document/ extract of meeting. There is no law to the effect that in any legal proceedings extract of minute of the meeting cannot be brought and that the original minute book has to be produced at the time of institution of Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL 19:09:51 Date: 2025.05.27 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 17/29 the case. Therefore, the aforesaid objection is found to be inconsequential.
23.6. Next objection is to the effect that the petition is accompanied with a General Power Attorney in favour of petitioner No. 3 which is dated 16.12.2021 whereas the petition has been instituted with affidavits dated 06.12.2021 therefore the attorney in favour of petitioner No. 3 is after the fact and therefore the petition is defective. On perusal of the petition and affidavit supporting the petition, it is found that the petition is filed along with the affidavits of all the five Trustees i.e. petitioner No. 2 to 6. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the petition is filed without supporting affidavits of the petitioners. The GPA dated 16.12.2021 only appears to be a document created by petitioner No. 2, 4, 5 and 6 (other Trustees) in favour of petitioner No. 3 for the purpose of representing them during the trial if at all required. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petition is defective due to lack of necessary affirmation under Oaths Act.
23.7. The next objection pertaining to the disclosure of nature of the Trust i.e. public or private is also found to be meritless as disclosure of the nature of the Trust is not a necessary requirement of law under Delhi Rent Control Act. Even otherwise, petitioners have filed the Trust deed dated 27.12.1984 which also discloses the aims and objectives of the Trust. Furthermore, as observed above, once the landlord tenant relationship is established the internal arrangement and Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:09:56 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 18/29 technicalities of the landlord is not a prerogative of a tenant.
23.8. The biggest bone of contention between the parties is with respect to maintainability of the petition U/s 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, as respondents have strongly asserted that the correct provision of law to be invoked in the present proceedings is Section 22 of DRC Act. To understand the objection, it is first necessary to refer to Section 22 of the Act which reads as under:-
22 Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases. - where the landlord in respect of any premises in 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 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 was let for use as a residence at a time when he was in the service or employment of the Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:10:01 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 19/29 landlord, has ceased to be in such service or employment ; or
(b) That the tenant has acted in contravention of the terms, express or imply, under which he was authorised to occupy such premises; or
(c) that any other person is in unauthorised occupation of such premises; or
(d) that the premises are required bonafide by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities.
Explanation:- for the purpose 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.
On perusal of the provision, it is found that Section 22 of DRC Act is drafted specifically for landlords which are company, other body corporate, local authority or any public institution. It is the version of the respondents that the petitioner No. 1 would fall into the category of the public institution and not a private Trust as the objectives of the Trust was to serve general public by using the property for charitable purposes such as running of dispensary, educational institution, library and other social activities and for religious purposes of the Hindu Community. It is also Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:10:08 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 20/29 argued that interplay between Section 22 and 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act has been considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgment titled as K. S. Bhandari Vs. International Security Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Frontier Sales Vs. Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd., Jai Rani & Anr. Vs. Lala Joti Pershad Shiv Mandir Trust & Ors., Shanti Devi Vs. Digambar Jain Panchayat Samaj, Badi Panchayat Vaish Bise Aggarwal Vs. Sunil Gupta, Badi Panchayat Vaish Bise Aggarwal Vs. Jai Prakash Goel, Surendra Kaur & Anr. Vs. Anoop Singh Charitable Trust, all decided on 22.12.2017, wherein the issue of application of Section 22 of DRC Act on public charitable Trust carrying on organized activities was referred to a Larger Bench. It is an admitted position as of today that the aforesaid referral is yet to be decided by a Larger Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Per contra, petitioners have averred that petitioner Trust is a private Trust created on 27.12.1984 and therefore Section 22 of DRC Act is inapplicable, the petitioners have relied on the judgments titled National Distributor Company Vs. Sant Lal Godha and Sons Charity Trust and Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Shyam Lal, both decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.01.2012 and 04.09.1972 respectively.
In this context order dated 02.06.2023 pronounced by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RC. Rev. 257/2022 Bhaskar Refactories and Stoneware Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Industries Ltd. wherein it is held that;
33... though the abovementioned judgments Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:10:12 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain +0530 pg. no. 21/29 are in relation to issues pending before the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, they show that even during such pendency, the other courts may and should continue to decide the cases and applying the law as it then prevails. This is so, as mere pendency of a reference before the Larger Bench does not denude on the lis before them. Similarly, merely because of the pendency of the above proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and before this Court, respondent No. 1 cannot be set to be bound to necessarily hold its hands and not exercised the jurisdiction otherwise vested in it under the statute. Maybe, it would have been prudent for respondent No. 1 to have awaited the outcome of the above referred petitions before the Supreme Court and before this court, however, merely for its decision not to wait, the impugned order cannot be set to be without jurisdiction or so perverse so as to warrant to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
15.2. the law as it stands today recognizes the right of a corporate entity to maintain a petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:10:17 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 22/29 Act for, its bona fide need. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kumar Verma Vs. Laxmi Narayan Mandir Nirman Sabha & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine 6024. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under:-
16. A conjoint reading of two Sections U/s 14 (1)(e) and Section 22 of the DRC Act does not show that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or a public institution cannot apply for eviction U/s 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act.
Further in judgment title Satnam Kaur Vs. Ashlar Stores Pvt. Ltd. decided on 19.03.2009 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that 9 this court in the case of Chunni Lal Vs. Univerity of Delhi reported in 1970 RCR 742 drew a distinction between Section 14 and 22 of DRC Act in the following terms:-
... The relationship of Section 14 and 22, therefore, is that all landlords are able to apply U/s 14 but only the landlords who are corporate bodies or public institution are entitled to apply U/s 22. This necessarily means that such corporate and public Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:10:23 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 23/29 +0530 institution landlords have been given the ordinary grounds U/s 14 and additional grounds U/s 22. This accords with their position of being primarily similar to natural person and some times being different from them. I therefore, find that the corporate and public institution landlords are entitled to the ordinary grounds of eviction U/s 14 like other landlords and also to the special grounds of eviction U/s 22 which are peculiar to the corporate and public institution landlords and that Section 22 does not deprive the corporate and the public institution landlords from the benefits of Section 22.
On a combined reading of Bhaskar Refactories (supra) and Satnam Kaur (supra), the net effect that manifests is that pendency of an issue before a Larger Bench cannot bar a party to obtain relief under the prevalent law. Further, on drawing an analogy it is also clear that the legal entities mentioned in U/s 22 are not precluded from preferring a petition U/s 14 (1)(e) even when Section 22 of DRC may apply.
Therefore, the arguments raised by the respondents that the instant petition is not maintainable U/s 14(1)(e) is not found to be tenable in law. Furthermore, it is also found that the nature of the trust i.e. public or private is immaterial to Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:10:28 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 24/29 decide the present controversy and therefore, it is not found as a triable issue.
23.9. The next objection taken by the respondent is regarding the sale of property bearing No. A-193, Derawal Nagar, Delhi admeasuring 134 sq. yards corner plot, by petitioner No. 1 by way of sale deed on 27.09.2012 wherein it is asserted by the petitioners that petitioners have not only sold off the said property illegally but the sale also indicates that despite having a sufficient alternate accommodation, petitioners chose to assert their supposed bona fide requirement against the respondents. It is to be noted that respondent has not filed any transfer documents substantiating their plea. Rather, in reply to leave to defend, petitioners have stated that the property at Derawal Nagar was never allotted to petitioner No. 1 rather it was allotted to one Smt. Prakash Devi Bhatia who transferred the property to one Shyam Prakash Gupta. It is admitted by the petitioner No. 1 Trust had acquired certain rights in the property through Mr. Shyam Prakash Gupta, however Ms. Shashi Bhatia went on to create third party interest in the property by executing sale deed dated 27.09.2012 in collusion with few of old Trustees. Petitioners have further submitted that the aforesaid array of transactions lead to a multifarious litigation which only ended in a settlement before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 1 never received any monetary consideration after the said settlement. To strengthen the submission, petitioners have filed copy of order dated Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:10:34 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 25/29 10.08.2015 of Hon' ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) 2009/2014 along with mediation settlement agreement dated 29.05.2015 and Trust Resolution dated 29.05.2015. On perusal of the aforesaid documents, it is found that the sale of the Derawal Nagar property was carried out by one Shashi Bhatia, w/o Sh. Prem Prakash Bhatia and that no consideration in the said sale was taken by the petitioner No. 1 Trust. Even otherwise, the present petition has been instituted in the year 2022 i.e. 10 years after, the aforesaid has been carried out. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of institution of the present petition, the property of Derawal Nagar was not available as an alternate accommodation to the petitioners.
23.10. The assertion of the respondents that the petitioners intend to demolish the entire structure is not found to be carrying any value as it is the case of the petitioners that they intend to construct a training center at the tenanted premises after joining the surrounding areas. Therefore, the mere intention to demolish the structure to achieve the aims and objections of the Trust cannot be accepted as a triable issue.
Furthermore, it is only the prerogative of the landlord to decide as to the form and structure of the property and a tenant cannot be allowed to dictate his own terms on the landlord. In addition, the concerned area being a cloth market also is not found to be a triable issue as the nature and character of the market cannot be the sole criteria for the petitioners to start a training center when specifically the Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:10:39 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 26/29 petitioners do not have any other immovable property at their disposal, to attain the goal and objectives of the petitioners Trust.
23.11. Further, the respondents also assert that the area of the premises is more than 190 sq. yards and therefore, petitioners are guilty of concealment. However, it is seen that respondents have not filed any site plan of their own to substantiate such objections and therefore, the same is also found to be groundless.
24.Examining on the said touchstone, this Court is of the view that petitioner has successfully shown his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises for opening a training institute/center for stitching and other allied activities in consonance with the aims and objectives of petitioner No. 1 Trust and there is nothing on the record to suggest otherwise.
25.With regards the requirement of there being alternative accommodation being available with the petitioner, it is to be noted that it has been repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best utilised by him.
The landlord is the absolute owner of his property and the best person to decide which property is to be utilised in what way is the landlord himself. In addition, the respondent also cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to utilise his property. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27 19:10:44 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 27/29 specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. It is not within the purview of the courts to impose directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises. Essentially, the courts should refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord's residential choices. In "Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co." [(2000) 1 SCC 679] the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that:-
"10...It is true that the plaintiff landlord in his evidence stated that there were a number of other shops and houses belonging to him but he made a categorical statement that his said houses and shops were not vacant and that the suit premises is suitable for his business purpose. It is a settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. (See Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC 353] .) In the case in hand the plaintiff landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
26.The respondents have not shown, stated or pleaded that petitioners currently own any property except for the tenanted premises to fulfill their bona fide requirement. The only assertion regarding an alternate accommodation was made with respect to a property at Derawal Nagar. However, that issue has already been dealt in paragraph No. 23.9. Even otherwise it is now a matter of record that petitioners do not Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:10:51 +0530 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 28/29 own any property presently or at the time of institution of the petition so as to qualify as an alternate accommodation.
27.Taking into account the entire conspectus of circumstances as discussed above therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner landlord has successfully shown that the tenanted premises is best suitable accommodation for petitioner needs and that he is the landlord of the same. Accordingly, application seeking leave to defend is dismissed and eviction order with regards property bearing No. IX/7005, Ground Floor, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi admeasuring 16'6"X7'4" (shown in red colour in the site plan) is passed in favor of the petitioners and against the respondents.
28.The petitioners landlord shall not be entitled to get possession of the tenanted premises before the expiry of six months from today as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
29.File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:10:56 +0530 (Charu Asiwal) ACJ/CCJ/ARC/Shahdara KKD Courts/Delhi 27.05.2025 RC ARC 4/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Turst Vs. Mr. Prem Chand Jain pg. no. 29/29