Delhi District Court
In Re vs Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust ... on 15 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCT No. 52/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-001824-2014
In re:
Shri Rishi Walia
S/o Late Shri Praveen Walia
R/o H. No. O-52, Vijay Vihar
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. . . . . . . Appellant
Versus
Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.)
H-Block, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
(Through its President). . . . . Respondent
Date of filing of Eviction Petition : 02.02.2006
Date of impugned judgment : 30.09.2013
Date of filing of the appeal : 08.01.2014
Date of arguments advanced : 18.11.2021
Date of judgment : 15.12.2021
Appearances:
Mr. S. P. Tyagi, Advocate for the appellant/tenant.
Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent/landlord.
Respondents no. 2 to 6 are proforma respondents during the trial.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide an appeal preferred under Section 38(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, 'DRC Act') whereby the appellant/tenant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed in the Eviction Petition bearing E. No.72/2011 RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 1 of 19 titled 'Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) vs. Rishi Walia' by the Court of Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler, the then Ld. ACJ/ARC (West), THC, Delhi (in short, 'Ld. ARC'), whereby an Eviction order was passed against the appellant/tenant qua the tenancy premises under Section 22 of the DRC Act.
2. First thing first, an application under Section 38(2) of the DRC Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed,, which was decided in favour of the appellant by the then Ld. District & Sessions Judge (West), THC, Delhi vide order dated 14.03.2014 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent and the said order was not challenged, and thus final and not open to challenge.
BRIEF FACTS PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONER/LANDLORD
3. Briefly stated, the petitioner filed an Eviction petition under Section 22 of the DRC Act claiming that it was a Trust and a "public institution" registered with the Registrar of Societies and having a Memorandum of Association besides rules & regulations for governing its affairs. It was stated that it was running a school, namely Shri Sanatan Dharam Bal Vidhyalaya, which besides providing free education to about 20 students, also provides dresses, books, etc. to the students coming from the poor strata of society and the object of the Society/Trust is to serve the public at large. The petitioner claimed that it is the owner as well as landlord of the tenancy premises, which is RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 2 of 19 a shop bearing No. 34 measuring 8x16 feet situated at the ground floor towards the Mangal Bazar Road Side as shown in red in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1 and the same was let out to the respondent vide rent agreement dated 24.10.1997 Ex. PW-1/9 @ Rs. 200/- per month excluding other charges.
4. It was pleaded that Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir is the biggest temple in the area and statutes of all Gods and Goddess are installed in the Mandir and there are number of devotees who visit the temple and there is a big hall in the Mandir premises on Mangal Bazar Roadside which is called Geeta Bhawan and it is used for the purposes of Kirya Chautha/Uthala and prayer meetings and the peoples have to reach the Geeta Bhawan from the main gate or from the other side after crossing whole of the Mandir from inside of the complex and the main gate is for egress-ingress of the devotees and the other side gate is at a long distance, which is not proper for a devotee or a person coming for attending public gatherings inside the Geeta Bhawan. It was thus pleaded that the petitioner Trust desires that people/ devotees should come directly in the Geeta Bhawan from a new gate, which is required to be made or opened through the tenancy shop No. 34. It is further stated that Geeta Bhawan is in a triangular shape as shown in the site plan and due to existence of shop No. 29 to 40 on Mangal Bazar Side road, there is no ventilation or window from that side that results in people feeling suffocated at the time of Pagri Rasam/Kirya/Uthala and prayer meetings, and there is no emergency gate for exit except the main gate No.3 and due to non-availability of RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 3 of 19 nearby gate near Geeta Bhawan, there is always an apprehension of any mis-happening whenever there are large gatherings of people that are organized in Geeta Bhawan on various occasions. It is stated that the tenancy premises is more suitable place as compared to other shops and it is located in the center of the Geeta Bhawan, and thus, the tenancy premises is required for opening of gate or for ingress-egress of the devotees to the main hall of Geeta Bhawan. Hence, the petition under Section 22 of the DRC Act.
PLEADINGS-WRITTEN STATEMENT
5. The Eviction petition was contested by the respondent and in his written statement, he inter alia took preliminary objections to the effect that the petitioner's Trust is neither the landlord of the tenancy premises nor it is a public institution. It is alleged that the petitioner is a Society created by several criminal minded persons with malafide intention and two of such criminal persons are Yashpal Bali and D. P. Sharma, who are trying to grab temple property in an illegal manner and that the rent deed relied upon by the petitioner Society is forged and fabricated document; and that since 1993 till 2002, the Members of the petitioner Trust kept on propagating that the temple had been purchased by them and in the year 2002, the Members took over the entire temple property claiming that it belonged to a Society or a Trust and also started claiming that the tenants of the shops are the tenants of the petitioner Society / Trust. It was further pleaded that some occupants of the shop including the father of the petitioner also paid some amount to the petitioner and expressed their desire to purchase RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 4 of 19 the respective shops from them but when his father demanded tile documents from the petitioner, they failed to given any satisfactory reply and inquiries by his father revealed that the petitioner Society / Trust neither purchased the Mandir property nor shops located in the Mandir, and thus, his father demanded the rent paid by him to Yashpal Bali and he was refunded an amount of Rs. 4,500/- by Yashpal Bali through a bank draft. On merits, the respondent / tenant denied the contents of the petition paragraph-wise reiterating that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
6. The respondent in his written statement also took preliminary objections that the registered office of the petitioner was initially mentioned to be situated at B-33/34, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the said place is quite far away from H-block, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He also alleged that shop No. 27 was proposed to be sold by Yashpal Bali and D.P. Sharma to his father but they were unable to give any details with regard to ownership of the property in question and the father of the respondent on enquiries came to know about the following facts:-
i) that the 'Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust' is not a Trust but a 'Society' registered by only seven persons.
ii) that 'Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust' (i.e. the Society) is no way concerned with 'Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir' (i.e., the temple)
iii) that the 'Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust' neither has any title to 'Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir' nor purchased any of the shops situated around it.
iv) that the registered office of ''Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust' is situated at B-33, 34, Arya Samaj RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 5 of 19 Road, Uttam Nagar New Delhi-110069 whereas 'Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir' is situated at H-Block, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Both the place are approximately 3/4 Km far from each other.
v) that as per the municipal and revenue records, the actual and true owner of shop no. 27 and that of the temple (i.e., Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir) is Late Shri Raghubir Singh Tyagi S/o Shri Ram Chander R/o Village Hastsal, Delhi and after his death his legal heirs Shri Mool Raj Tyagi S/o Late Shri Raghubir Singh Tyagi R/o 371, Village and Post Office Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
7. Needless to state that a replication was filed by the petitioner Society/Trust and allegations levelled in the written statement were denied and the petitioner reiterated and reaffirmed the averments pleaded in the Eviction petition.
TRIAL-WITNESSES EXAMINED
8. During the course of long trial, Sh. Dharam Pal Sharma, son of Late Sh. C. L. Sharma claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society / Trust came in the witness box and filed his detailed affidavit in evidence dated 10.01.2008 Ex. P-1 and he was subjected to long and searching cross- examination on 02.04.2009 and 20.10.2009. On the other hand, the respondent, now appellant in the present appeal, examined Pritam Singh, son of Sh. Som Parkash, Junior Technical Assistant, Registrar of Societies, Office of the Commissioner of Industries, Udyog Sadan, Delhi as RW-1 besides surprising examining his nemesis viz., RW-2 Yashpal Bali, son of Sh. V. M. Bali. The appellant did not prefer to examine himself.
RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 6 of 19IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
9. The Ld. ARC vide impugned judgment dated 30.09.2013 spelled out the ingredients of Section 22 of the DRC Act and firstly rendered a finding that the petitioner Trust though registered under the Societies Registration Act is a "public institution" since the respondent failed to deny the existence and activities of the petitioner Society / Trust in specific terms in his written statement and reliance was placed in this regard on decision in Asha Kapoor v. Hari On Sharda, (2010) 171 DLT 743 and Bidhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust v. Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal, 1972 R.C.R. (Rent) 964.
10. Suffice to state that relying on the testimony of PW-1 Dharam Pal Sharma, it was held that the petitioner Society/Trust has been carrying on religious, social, educational and charitable activities in the interest of the society. Further finding that there was an admission by the respondent that rent was admittedly paid by his father to Yashpal Bali for sometime and finding that the respondent miserably failed to prove that the rent deed dated 24.10.1997 was forged and fabricated; and further for the fact that rent had been deposited under Section 27 of the DRC Act by the respondent in favour of President and Secretary of Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust, as evidenced by documents Mark 'A', a finding was rendered that Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir and Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust were the same entities and it was held that there was existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 7 of 1911. Lastly, as regards the issue of requiring the tenancy premises for opening a door/gate to the hall of the Geeta Bhawan, it was held that the same was required bonafidely on perusal of site plan Ex. PW-1/1 and consequently, the Eviction petition under Section 22 of the DRC Act was allowed and the Eviction order was passed in respect of the premises in question against the appellant in respect of Shop No. 34 measuring 8x16 feet situated at the ground floor towards the Mangal Bazar Road Side as shown in red in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1 and the respondent / tenanted was granted six months time to vacate the tenancy premises.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
12. The impugned judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Ld. ARC has been assailed in the present appeal inter alia on the grounds that a substantial question of law is involved in as much as an order of Eviction cannot be passed on an application or petition by any unauthorized persons on behalf of the Societies; and that the Ld. ARC failed to appreciate the fact that no evidence was led by the petitioner Society that it was a landlord qua the appellant; and that the petitioner miserably failed to establish that it was a public institution; and that the Ld. ARC erred in passing the Eviction order despite the fact that the evidence on record establish that the claim of the petitioner Society was based on forged and fabricated documents.
[ DECISION
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the ld. Counsel for the parties at the Bar. I RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 8 of 19 have gone through the appeal file and the documents filed therewith besides meticulously gone through the oral and documentary evidence established or brought during the trial. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the parties on the matters in issue.
14. In order to decide the present appeal, it would be expedient to refer to provisions of Section 22 of the DRC Act which reads as under:-
22. Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases. - Where the landlord in respect of any premises is any company or other body corporate or any local authority or any public institution and the premises are required for the use of employees of such landlord or in the case of a public institution, for the furtherance of its activities, then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 or any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such landlord, place the landlord in vacant possession of such premises by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation thereof, if the Controller is satisfied;
(a) that the tenant to whom such premises were let for use as a residence at a time when he was in the service or employment of the landlord, has ceased to be in such service or employment; or
(b) that the tenant has acted in contravention of the terms, express or implied, under which he was 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 bona fide by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "public institution" includes any educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary [but does not include any such institution set up by any private trust] RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 9 of 19
15. At the outset, the Ld. ARC has very rightly delineated the ingredients for succeeding in the Eviction petition under Section 22 of the DRC Act, which are as under :-
"a. That the petitioner is a public institution. b. That the petitioner is the landlord of the respondent. c. That the premises are required for the furtherance of activities of the petitioner."
16. In view of the aforesaid legal parameters for succeeding in a petition for eviction, reverting back to the instant case, the Ld. ARC has rightly referred to paragraph 18 (a) of the Eviction petition at page No. 7, wherein it was averred by the petitioner society/trust as under :-
"The petitioner is covered under Public Institution. It is running a school, namely Shri Sanatan Dharam Bal Vidhaylaya wherein petitioner provide free education to about 20 students and petitioner's management also used to provide dresses, books etc. The said school is also having library and petitioner is assisting to the poor people of society by solemnizing their marriages and by assisting them socially, morally and assisting to some extent financially also. Petitioner arrange health camps like Eyes, Polio, Blood Sugar and cadiac check-up etc. petitioner's Governing Body is registered with registrar of societies and have a Memorandum of Association and Rules and regulations. The object of the petitioner are mentioned therein and a copy thereof is annexed herewith."
17. Now, the respondent in the written statement in response to the said paragraph stated that "in the absence of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, paragraph 18(a) needed no reply". This Tribunal has no hesitation in mind that the Ld. ARC rightly held that there is no specific denial by the respondent with regard to the sphere of activities of the petitioner Society / Trust RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 10 of 19 and reliance was rightly placed on decision in Asha Kapoor v. Hari Om Sharda (supra) that absence of specific denial by the defendant/respondent in the written statement, would amount to admission of the averments/pleadings of the plaintiff/petitioner. Anyhow, since it is the duty of the Court/ Tribunal to decipher the pleadings and appreciate the evidence independently and not render a judgment on mere technical parameters, it is pertinent to mention that admittedly the petitioner is not a Trust but a Society registered with the Registrar of Societies. Thus, whether or not such registered Society is a public institution within the meaning of Section 22 of the DRC Act has been answered in the case of Bidhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust vs. Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal (supra), providing as under:-
"A trust is primarily a legal concept, a mode of transfer of property and of holding property. On the other hand, an institution is primarily a social concept. It is not a legal concept at all. For, there is no established legal method by which an institution may come into being. It may be established by way of an organisation which may assume any or no legal form. It may be a trust or a company or a statutory corporation or a mere unincorporated association or a society registered or otherwise. It is its work and place in the society that is the hall-mark of an institution. As observed by Lord Macnaghten in Mayor etc. of Manchester v. Mc Adam, 3 Tax Cases 491 at 497, "it in the body (so to speak) called into existence to translate the purpose as conceived in the mind of the founders into a living and active principle."
18. That is not the end of the matter. Ld ARC went further in dissecting the evidence led on the record and I find that it is un- impeached testimony of PW-1 D.P. Sharma that he was authorized to depose on behalf of the petitioner Society/Trust by virtue of being General Secretary of the same vide extracts of the Resolution passed RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 11 of 19 by the Managing Committee in his favour Ex.PW-1/29. Further, it is in the testimony of PW-1 D.P. Sharma and corroborated by the witness for the respondent RW-1 Pritam Singh that the petitioner Society was registered vide reference No. S/3704 on 23.04.1968, which certificate is Ex.PW-1/R-2 and a certificate to that effect was also filed from the office of Registrar of Societies Ex.PW-1/27, that has not been assailed in any manner. It is also a matter of record that some local persons had filed WP (Civil) No. 336/10 titled as 'Zile Singh & Ors. v. GNCT of Delhi' challenging the status of Sanatan Dharma Sabha and its registration under the Societies registration Act, 1860 vide S-25255/93 and the said petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 31.05.2010 inter alia observing that the Temple compound was included in the layout plan of the colony approved by the MCD resolution No. 2235 dated 19.07.1982; and that funds of the Temple were being maintained properly that were being subjected to periodical audit, and that a PAN number had already been allotted.
19. Much mileage was sought to be derived by the learned Counsel for the appellant arguing that Sanatan Dharam Mandir and Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust were two separate entities, which does not cut any ice. In any case, perusal of the Memorandum of Association of the petitioner Society proved as Ex.PW-1/28 would clearly show that registered office of the Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Trust is now stated to be located at H-Block, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.It is uncontroverted testimony of PW-1 D.P. Sharma that RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 12 of 19 construction of the temple, laying down the statutes of the deities and the construction of the shops, as shown in the site plan Ex.PW-1/1, were carried out over a period of long years by the local residents with his assistance as also that of RW-2 Yashpal Bali and the shop had been let out from time to time to different tenants and there is no challenge to the affidavit of RW-2 Yashpal Bali Ex.RW-1/5 dated 20.03.2007, which was submitted by him at the time of change of registered address of the society, whereby he claimed that he was President as well as legal owner of the land over which the Temple as also other structures in the complex.
20. There is no merit in the plea that the petitioner society was initially registered on some other address far away from the place of its activities as there is no legal requirement that a registered office as also the place of doing public services should be the same. It is further in the testimony of PW-1 D.P. Sharma that shop in question was let out to the respondent in the year March-1986, which was not controverted, and that thereafter a formal rent agreement dated 29.04.1997 was executed Ex.PW-1/9, which was witnessed by him bearing his signatures at point 'X' and the testimony of PW-1 is again un- impeached that at the relevant time he was Secretary of the petitioner Society/Trust. While, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant kept on unabashedly denying that petitioner Society/Trust is not the owner or landlord of the tenancy premises in question, the appellant patently fails making any iota of averment as to how the appellant came to acquire the possession of the tenancy premises and/or from whom? The RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 13 of 19 appellant has not chosen to come in the witness box and surprisingly he rather summoned his arch rival RW-2 Yashpal Bali who reiterated that he was legal owner of the property in question and was President of the Society in the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 when the rent deed Ex.PW-1/9 was executed on 24.10.1997. Mere bald denial of the execution of the rent deed and claiming it to be forged and fabricated carry no weight and the defence of the appellant manifestly appears to be without any substance.
21. The sum result of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioner Society/Trust is able to prove that it is public institution carrying out religious, social, educational and charitable activities in the interest of the society and is very much a 'public institution' within the four corners of Section 22 of the DRC Act. As regards the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the objection raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant are also bereft any merit. At the cost of repetition, rent agreement dated 24.10.1997 Ex.PW-1/9 has been validly proved on the record. The appellant is failing to show as to how and under whom he became tenant or acquired possession of the tenancy shop. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-1 D.P. Sharma in his affidavit in evidence Ex.P-1 vide paragraph (7) deposed as under:
"I say that respondent earlier filed a petition U/s 27 of the D.R.C. Act in my name and in the name of Yash Pal Bali, President of Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir wherein some another persons were also shown party and it was pleaded by the respondent that they are also claiming rent. But vide order dated 13.02.2004 Shri Atul Kumar Garg then Addl. Rent Controller Delhi, was pleased to direct the respondent to pay rent to Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir, through our official capacity only and we were RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 14 of 19 allowed to withdraw the rent from the court. A photostat copy of that order is also filed on record which is marked 'A'
22. Suffice to state that in the entire cross-examination of PW-1, the said position was not challenged. In other words, there was no challenge that rent was indeed deposited under Section 27 of the DRC Act by the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Yaspal Bali and D.P. Sharma being President and Secretary respectively of the petitioner Society/Trust were allowed to withdraw the rent so deposited, substantiated by the copy of order dated 13.02.2004 passed by Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, the then Ld. ARC in DR No. 341/02. Although certified copy of the said order was not proved on record, at the cost of repetition the testimony of PW-1 was not challenged and the appellant has not chosen to come in the witness box to account for the deposit of rent in such a manner by him, wherein he inter alia admitted that petitioner Society / Trust was landlord qua him. Thus, the findings recorded by the Ld. ARC in the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2013 on the issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be challenged.
23. Coming to the crucial aspect of Section 22 of the DRC Act as to whether the tenancy premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner for opening a door to have access to Geeta Bhawan, Ld. ARC observed as under:-
11.1 The petitioner society has alleged4 that there is a big hall in the Mandir premises on Mangal Bazar Road side which is called Geeta Bhawan and which is a place used for the purposes of Kirya Chautha/Uthala and prayer RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 15 of 19 meetings. That people reach the aforesaid Geeta Bhawan from main gate or from other side by crossing whole of the Mandir. That main gate is meant for egress-ingress of the devotees and the other side gate is at a long distance, which is not proper for a person who is coming for attending Shok Sabha as he has to cross the whole of Mandir to reach Geeta Bhawan. Thus, management wants that people should come directly in the Geeta Bhawan from a new gate which is required to be made/opened from the place of Shop No. 34. That this Geeta Bhawan is in the triangular shape (shown in site plan filed by petitioner) and due to shop no. 29 to 40 on Mangal Bazar side Road, there is no ventilation or any window on this side due to non-ventilation or any windows people used to feel suffocation at the time of pagri rasm/Kirya/Uthala and prayer used to pass in uneasy manner and there is no emergency gate for exit except main gate no. 3 and due to non-availability of nearby door or any emergency gate to Geeta Bhawan there are apprehensions of mis-happening for the gathering which assemble in the Geeta Bhawan during the aforesaid occasions. That tenanted premises is most suitable place as compared to other shops because it is situated in the center of the wall of Geeta Bhawan hence the tenanted premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner for opening a gate in the hall of Geeta Bhawan.
11.2 In reply to this para on merits in the written statement the respondent has merely stated as under:-
"18(a) That in absence of landlord-tenant relation between the petitioner and the respondent, paw 18(b) of the petition need no reply"
11.3 Thus, there is no specific denial by the respondent as regards the requirement of the petitioner and that the petitioner requires the premises for opening a gate of Geeta Bhwan towards Mangal Bazar side, as per the rules of pleadings and as per the judgment titled Asha Kapoor Vs Had Om Shardas5. Thus, it stands admitted by the respondent that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for its bonafide requirement for the furtherance of its activities.
RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 16 of 1911.4 It may be noted that even in the written arguments the alleged requirement of the petitioner has not been challenged by the respondent.
11.5 Moreover, a perusal of the site plan Ex.PW-1/C reveals the reason behind the requirement. The site plan clearly shows that Geeta Bhawan has no gate towards Mangal Bazar and that it can be reached only after entering the premises of the Mandir form Gate No.3. which is nearest to the said Bhawan. The tenanted shop is in the middle of Geeta Bhawan towards Mangal Bazar side and as such fit for opening a new gate of Geeta Bhawan for the convenience of public persons who visit the said Bhawan for one reason or the other.
11.6 Coming to the oral testimony of the sole petitioner witness PW-1, it is found that the said witness in his affidavit in Para 4 on page 3 has deposed as regards the aforesaid requirement of the petitioner society. However, despite lengthy cross examination of this witness no suggestion has been given to him that the alleged requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide and he has not been questioned at all as regards the alleged requirement.
11.7 Thus, the court is satisfied that the tenanted premises is required by petitioner society for furtherance of its activities and for the convenience of the public at large who visit the mandir and Geeta Bhawan.
24. Without further ado, the aforesaid findings recorded by the Ld. ARC are also not open to challenge on any grounds whatsoever. PW-1 in his detailed affidavit in evidence Ex.P-1 vide paragraph (6) and (8) reiterated such averments on oath. A bare reading of the cross- examination of PW-1 would show that the said aspects were not controverted in any manner. There was no challenge to the correctness RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 17 of 19 of the site plan Ex.PW-1/1. A bare perusal of the site plan Ex.PW-1/1 would show that entire complex is in triangular shape and it has 41 shops having opening towards Sanatan Dharma Mandir Market, Mangal Bazar Road. Then, there is shop no. 42 opening on two sides i.e., towards mangal bazar and then having an opening along with shops No. 43 to 67 towards the side of Sanatan Dharam Mandir Marg and there are shops No. A-1 to 70 on the third perpendicular side viz. Sanatan Dharam Mandir Market Lane. The structure of Geeta Bhawan is shown on the extreme left along with the front shop NO. 29 to 41 and then corner triangular shop No. 42 on the side of Sanatan Dharam Mandir Market, Mangal Bazar Road and the tenancy shop in question viz. No. 34 shown in red is strategically placed in the middle of Geeta Bhawan. The site plan Ex. PW-1/1 further depicts that Gate No.3 is located at some considerable distance between shop No. 27 and 29 whereas there is another small gate, which opens far away on the side of Sanatan Dharam Mandir Marg.
25. Now, it is no way the case of the appellant that his shop is not suitable to provide access to the structure indicated as Geeta Bhawan. The testimony of PW-1 is uncontroverted and unrebutted that the devotees face problem in having access to the Geeta Bhawan coming all the way from gate No.3 and passing through entire length and breadth of the temple for converging on various public functions. In any case, it is for the petitioner Soceity/Trust to spell out as what is best for the user and enjoyment of the property in public interest and the appellant cannot dictate any terms to the petitioner on this score. In RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 18 of 19 view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the present appeal is devoid of any merits. The appellant has been making all kind of sham and bogus defences to keep occupying the tenancy premises to the detriment of interest of the public at large and the devotees who throng the 'Temple Complex'.
26. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be deposited by way of donation to the temple within 30 days from today evidenced by a valid receipt from the petitioner society/trust, failing which the appellant shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The appellant is directed to vacate the premises within six months from today, failing which he shall be liable to pay penal charges/damages to tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the petitioner Society/Temple from the date of impugned eviction order. Accordingly, the eviction order passed by the Ld. ARC vide impugned judgment dated 30.09.2013 with regard to shop No. 34, measuring 8 x 16 feet on the ground floor on Mangal Bazar Road Side as shown in the site plan Ex.PW-1/1 is sustained.
27. Trial Court record along-with copy of this Judgment be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information and record. File of appeal be consigned to the Record Room. DHARMESH Digitally signed by DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.12.16 22:48:56 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) on 15th December, 2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge/ Rent Control Tribunal (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi RCT No.52/2016 Rishi Walia vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Regd.) Page 19 of 19