Delhi District Court
488 vs Sh. S. K. Beri on 18 March, 2015
1
In the court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal
CCJ cum Additional Rent Controller1(Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Case No. E114/12
Unique ID No. 02401C0259082012
In the matter of :
Arya Anathalaya
(Known in English as Arya Orphanage)
1488, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi1100002. ............Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. S. K. Beri
1488, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi1100002. .........Respondent
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION 22 OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT Date of Institution: 04.06.2012 Final arguments heard/case reserved for Judgment: 03.02.2015 Date of Judgment: 18.03.2015 Decision: Petition allowed Page 1 of 9 E-114/12 2 EXPARTE JUDGMENT:
1. An eviction petition u/s 22 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [in short "the Act"] has been filed by the petitioner Arya Anathalaya against the respondent Sh. S. K. Beri for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., one room measuring 383 sq. ft. on the ground floor, first premises on the left side from the main entrance gate of the building facing road side of Arya Anathalaya situated at property municipal No. 1488, Ward No. 11, Pataudi House, New Delhi110002, as shown in red colour in site plan annexed alongwith petition on the ground of bonafide requirement of the petitioner society.
2. The case of the petitioner society is that the petitioner Arya Anathalaya was founded in the year 1918 and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. That the petitioner society is a public charitable trust and a public institution for the benefit of orphan boys and girls. The managing committee of the petitioner in its meeting dated 01.07.2011 resolved to file eviction petition against the respondent and authorised Sh. Viresh Pratap Choudhary, president of its managing committee to institute and prosecute the eviction suit. However, Sh. V. P. Choudhary passed away on 05.09.2013 and therefore vide order dated 26.02.2014, the name of Sh. Sudhir Kumar Gupta was substituted in place of Sh. V P Choudhary to proceed with the present case. Page 2 of 9 E-114/12 3
3. The petitioner society has a big campus at 1488, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and that there are number of orphan inmates in the said campus. The boys section has been separately named as Arya Bal Gariha and the girls section has been named as Arya Kanya Sadan. Both of them continued in the Pataudi House campus of the petitioner orphanage and under its overall control. That till 1995, the children of this society were receiving education in municipal and Govt. aided schools.
However, in order to provide quality education to them and to improve academic standard, it was decided by the petitioner society to establish a school in the campus of Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, New Delhi for the benefits of said inmates. Therefore, the school named as "Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya" came into existence on 16.09.1995 and the required approval was accorded to the petitioner's school by the Additional Director (School), Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The said school is now a senior secondary school and the petitioner has sponsored the school, it nominates 7 members on the managing committee of the school and also meets all the expenses towards the salary of the staff which the sponsoring trust of an aided school. The petitioner also makes liberal contributions to the school for meeting its other incidental expenses and also looks after its maintenance and expansion. Presently there are about 800 inmates of Arya Bal Gariha and 300 inmates of Arya Kanya Sadan who are receiving education in the said school.
Page 3 of 9 E-114/12 4
4. The respondent is a tenant of the petitioner in the suit premises at the rent of Rs. 1,235/ per month excluding water and electricity charges. However, inspite of stretching every sinew of it, the petitioner, on account of limits of accommodation presently available with it in the campus, is not finding it possible to admit more orphan children and in providing present inmates amenities which the petitioner feels is their rightful due. It is averred that the petitioner is greatly handicapped in furthering its charitable activities due to extreme shortage of accommodation.
5. It is submitted by the petitioner that for the furtherance of the charitable activities of the petitioner society which can brook no delay, some of which are mentioned below, the petitioner requires additional space and therefore eviction of the tenanted premises is sought. The activities for furtherance of which the additional accommodation is required are as stated below: a. To provide better amenities to the present students in Rani Dutta Arya Vidalaya at least 10 rooms are required.
b. To provide education to more orphan children in Rani Dutta Arya Vidalaya and to provide class rooms for them, the petitioner requires at least 15 rooms.
c. For further expanding its administrative wing, two rooms are required.
d. To cater to the medical need of boys and girls who are residing in Page 4 of 9 E-114/12 5 the campus, two rooms are required by the petitioner. e. To further expand the charitable activities of Arya Anathalaya, it requires two rooms.
f. To make provision for more spacious dormitories for existing inmates, in order to make them more comfortable, the petitioner requires 10 rooms.
g. To construct one more hostel to accommodate orphan / destitute boys and girls, it requires more vacant accommodation which is presently in occupation of its various tenants and unauthorized occupants.
6. Even a legal notice dated 18.10.2011 was sent by the petitioner society to the respondent for vacation of the tenanted premises for the furtherance of activities of the orphanage but despite that the said premises has not been vacated by the respondent. The petitioner, a public institution, is seeking eviction of the respondent by filing present petition under Section 22 of DRC Act, 1958.
7. Summons were served upon the respondent through ordinary process as well as registered post which was duly served upon the respondent on 10.09.2012. However, despite that none had appeared on behalf of the respondent and therefore the respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20.03.2013.
Page 5 of 9 E-114/12 6
8. Exparte petitioner evidence led wherein AR of the petitioner society Sh. Sudhir Kumar Gupta stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed on the lines of the petition. Further, he relied upon following documents:
a. Copy of registration of petitioner society : Ex. PW1/1 b. Copy of Memorandum of Association : Ex. PW1/2 c. Resolution dated 01.07.2011 : Ex. PW1/3 d. Letter dated 16.10.1995 : Ex. PW1/4 e. Letter dated 16.11.1995 : Ex. PW1/5 f. Site plan : Ex. PW1/6 g. Resolution dated 27.11.2010 : Ex. PW1/7 h. Legal notice dated 18.10.2011 : Ex. PW1/8 i. Postal receipt : Ex. PW1/9
9. After that petitioner evidence was closed vide separate statement dated 20.12.2014.
10. Section 22 of DRC Act provides as under:
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, the, 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 Page 6 of 9 E-114/12 7 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 authorized to occupy such premises; or
(c) that any other person is in unauthorized occupation of such premises; or
(d) that the premises are required boanfide 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.
11. In the present case, it is averred by the petitioner society, i.e., Arya Anathalaya that the same is a public institution and therefore eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises is sought on the ground of bonafide requirement of the petitioner society for furtherance of its activities in the campus. The petitioner society which is a orphanage and also running a school from the campus of the orphanage comes under the definition of public institution as has been defined under Section 22 of DRC Act explanation which provides that "public institution" includes any educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary but does not include any such institution set up by any private trust. In the present case, it has been averred by the petitioner society that the Page 7 of 9 E-114/12 8 petitioner society is a public charitable trust and a public institution for the benefit of orphan boys and girls and nowhere it has stated that the petitioner society is set up by a private trust. The petitioner society is running a school named as Rani Dutta Arya Vidalaya alonwith orphanage from its campus and space is required for the bonafide requirement for furtherance of the activities of the said school and therefore the present petitioner falls under the definition of the public institution. As far as the bonafide requirement is concerned, it has been clearly stated by the petitioner society that the said rented accommodation is required by the petitioner society for furtherance of its activities for providing education to more orphans and for providing additional amenities to the existing students as well as expanding administrative wing of the school and to provide more spacious dormitories for existing inmates. In these circumstances, it is clear that the rented accommodation is required for furtherance of the activities for the improvement / betterment of the school of the petitioner society. In these circumstances, all the essential ingredient of Section 22 of DRC Act have been duly fulfilled. Since the claim of the petitioner remains unrebutted in the absence of any written statement or any evidential proof on behalf of the respondent, therefore the averment made by the petitioner is deemed to be admitted. For aforesaid reasons, it is held that petitioner proved all the ingredients of Section 22 of the Act and in light of findings given above, the eviction Page 8 of 9 E-114/12 9 petition under Section 22 of the Act is allowed. Accordingly, petitioner would be entitled for recovery of possession of tenanted premises, i.e., one room measuring 383 sq. ft. on the ground floor, first premises on the left side from the main entrance gate of the building facing road side of Arya Anathalaya situated at property municipal No. 1488, Ward No. 11, Pataudi House, New Delhi110002, as shown in red colour in site plan filed alongwith petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
Announced in open Court (Namrita Aggarwal)
th
on 18 Day of March , 2015. CCJ cum ARC1 (Central)
[This judgment contains 09 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 9 of 9 E-114/12