Delhi District Court
Sh. Vinay Kumar Khambate vs Sh. Vinay Kumar Aggarwal on 26 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT010007812014
RCT No. 30230/2016
Sh. Vinay Kumar Khambate
S/o Late Sh. P.S. Khambate
R/o 1/15, Rani Jhansi Road,
New Delhi110055 .....Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Vinay Kumar Aggarwal
2. Sh. Lalit Kumar Goel
3. Sh. Vivek Aggarwal
4. Sh. Surender Kumar Goel
5. Mr. Mohit Goel
S/o Sh. Lalit Kumar Goel
16, Toder Mal Lane,
Bengali Market,
New Delhi110001
6. Mr. Vimal Mahipal
S/o Late Sh. M.P. Mahipal
E273, Greater Kailash II,
New Delhi
All Trustees of:
Banwari Lal Charitable Trust,
1/1 Rani Jhansi Road,
New Delhi .....Respondents
RCT No. 30230/16 Vinay Kumar Khambate v. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Page 1 of 7
Date of filing of Appeal : 30.04.2014 Date of reserving Order : 13.03.2018 Date of Order : 26.03.2018 ORDER ON APPEAL UNDER SECTION 38 OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 Appellant has filed the present appeal against impugned judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed by Ld. ARC (Central) whereby eviction petition under Section 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) originally filed against father of the appellant was allowed.
2. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents. Trial Court Record was summoned.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Trust is not the owner of the property and it is not a public charitable trust under Section 22 of the DRC Act, hence, the respondents cannot have possession of the tenanted premises. It is further submitted that it is a private trust, hence the petition ought to have been dismissed.
5. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on a judgment titled as Smt. Shanti Devi & Anr. v. State & Ors. AIR 1982 DELHI 453, wherein it has been held that the Trusts Act does not RCT No. 30230/16 Vinay Kumar Khambate v. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Page 2 of 7 apply to the public trust and charitable trust and the distinction between a private and a public trust is that in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals whereas in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. There is no dispute regarding ratio of this judgment but it does not help the appellant as detailed in succeeding paragraphs.
6. It has been also submitted by Ld. Counsel for appellant that there was a perpetual lease of the premises in question in favour of Sh. Banwari Lal and the activities envisaged by the Trust cannot be carried out in view of terms of such perpetual lease deed. All the trustees are relatives of testators. Other properties of the Trust were lying vacant and diagnostic Centre was not opened there. It is further submitted that eviction petition is to be filed in the name of the Trust; two trustees died during pendency of the eviction petition, so decree has been passed in favour of dead person which cannot be sustained. The eviction petition has been decided as if it was under Section 14(1)
(e) of the DRC Act and not under Section 22 thereof. Hence, it has been submitted that the impugned order is liable to be setaside.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that impugned judgment is reasoned one; all the facts and circumstances are covered; father of the appellant was a tenant; tenancy was terminated during lifetime of the original tenant (P.S. Khambate); the appellant had limited right in tenancy as per DRC RCT No. 30230/16 Vinay Kumar Khambate v. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Page 3 of 7 Act. It has been also submitted that respondent trust is a public charitable trust and the space is required for furtherance of its activities.
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment titled as Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust v. Kanhaiyalal Shamlal 1972 RLR 142, wherein it has been held that under Section 22 of the DRC Act a trust gets formed when property is transferred for a charitable or a public purpose. But a public institution comes into being only when it starts organized activities for a public purpose. Ratio of this judgment is applicable to the facts of this case.
9. It is not disputed that Sh. P.S. Khambate, father of the appellant was a tenant in respect of tenanted premises and he died during pendency of the eviction petition and the appellant Vinay Kumar Khambate was brought on record. Ld. ARC has held that on the basis of evidence and documents on record that the tenanted premises was used for composite purpose i.e. residential and commercial. As regards whether the Banwari Lal Charitable Trust was a private trust or a public institution, it was noticed that by way of Supplementary Trust Deed Ex. PW1/2, the activities of the Trust were enhanced and the Trust was authorized to open a hospital for benefits of general public at no loss/no profit basis. The balance sheet of the Trust was produced on record alongwith charge list which RCT No. 30230/16 Vinay Kumar Khambate v. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Page 4 of 7 proved that beneficiaries of the charitable trust were the general public. The exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act was given to the said charitable trust. The statement of account also proved that the charitable trust was working at no profit/no loss basis. Even the charges for various tests conducted at the laboratories of the trust is less than 50% as usually charged by other laboratories. General public can avail the services of the Trust free of cost or at a minimal cost. The Trust started functioning as a charitable dispensary rendering services to the public free of cost. All the funds of the Trust were required to be used for purpose of furtherance of objectives of the Trust only and it was not the discretion of the trustees to use funds at their own will. The Trust is engaged in organized activity of running a dispensary and a pathological lab. Hence, it was rightly held by Ld. ARC that Banwari Lal Charitable Trust is a public institution under Section 22 of the DRC Act. It does not matter whether trustees are related to Testator or not. What is paramount is that who are beneficiaries of the Trust. In the present case, the beneficiary is the general public.
10. As regards bonafide requirement of the Trust, it was contended on behalf of landlord trust that for furtherance of activities of the trust, diagnostic centre, clinical/pathological lab and hospital are being run and suit premises is in close proximity to the charitable dispensary of the Trust. It was a suitable accommodation where RCT No. 30230/16 Vinay Kumar Khambate v. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Page 5 of 7 additional equipment and machinery can be installed in furtherance of activities of the Trust. It was contended on behalf of the appellant/tenant that the Trust was in possession of other accommodation at 8, Lady Harding Hospital, Shahid Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi and that major portion of the property was lying vacant which could be used by the Trust for furtherance of its activities. However, it is an admitted fact that the accommodation at Lady Harding Hospital is at a far off distance from the charitable dispensary. Moreover, the additional accommodation is in possession of various tenants. Tenanted premises is in close proximity of the dispensary being run by the Trust and more suitable. Additional accommodation is at far off place and in possession of other tenants, so the same cannot be conveniently used for furtherance of activities of the Trust.
11. An objection has been raised that respondent Trust is not owner of the premises. If a tenant disputes the ownership of the landlord, then the tenant has to establish who is owner of the premises as per settled law. No such effort has been made by the tenant to come up with his defence that the premises were owned by another person. The trust was created in 1986 in terms of last Will dated 11.08.1953 of Sh. Banwari Lal. Hence, the property in question vests with the trust and Ld. ARC was right in treating the trust as landlord of the appellant.
RCT No. 30230/16 Vinay Kumar Khambate v. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Page 6 of 712. Other objection that as per the perpetual lease of the property, the same cannot be used for running the welfare activities is without any basis. It is imperative that the Trust will start its activities in the premises in dispute after taking required permissions. Mere death of one or two Trustees will not result in Trust being disbanded or the petition being dismissed. The Trust has a right to act through its trustees and it can very well file an eviction petition. The order of another Ld. ARC is not binding on the present Ld. ARC. Trust is a charitable trust as it is running charitable dispensary, pathological labs and a hospital for the general public free of cost or at a minimal rate, hence, it is a public institution within the meaning of Section 22 of the DRC Act. Since the premises was required bonafide by the Trust for furtherance of its activities, eviction petition was rightly allowed and there is no fault in impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. TCR be sent back along with copy of the order.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by TALWANT TALWANT SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.03.28
10:30:19 +0530
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 26th March, 2018 District & Sessions Judge (HQs)
Rent Control Tribunal
Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi
RCT No. 30230/16 Vinay Kumar Khambate v. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Page 7 of 7