Delhi District Court
The Buddhist Society Of India vs Sh. Asghar Ali on 11 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-
COMMERCIAL CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH-EAST),
COURT NO. 60, KKD COURTS, DELHI.
E No. 34/14
Unique Case ID No.: 02402C0275782014
In the matter of :
The Buddhist Society of India
Through its President,
Sh. Yashwant Singh Gautam,
Its Branch Office D-38/1,
New Seelampur,
Delhi - 110 053. ....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Asghar Ali
S/o Sh. Mohd. Ali,
R/o Shop No. 2, Forming part of
Property no. D-38/1,
New Seelampur,
Delhi - 110 053. ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 12/09/2014 Order reserved on : 23/01/2015 Date of Pronouncement : 11/03/2015
ORDER ON THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (e) R/W SECTION 25 B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
1. Brief facts :
The petitioner is a registered society having its Head Office at Dr. Ambedkar Bhawan, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. The present petition has been filed through its President Sh. Yashwant Singh Gautam. He is authorized to file present petition vide Resolution annexure B dt. 23.01.10. The Shop E No.34/14 Page 1 to 6 bearing private No.2 in Property bearing No.D-38/1, New Seelampur, Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'tenanted shop'), was rented-out to respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.105/- excluding electricity charges.
2. It is also averred that the respondent is in arrears of rent since February, 2003.
2.1 It is stated that the tenanted shop is required by the petitioner society for increasing the availability of space in the society complex built at D-38/1, New Seelampur. The number of devotees visiting the petitioner society has increased, due to this the present space available in the aforementioned property is not sufficient. A Legal Notice dated 23/08/2014 was sent by the petitioner to the respondent. Reply dated 03/09/2014 to the legal notice was also received by the petitioner.
3. An application for grant of leave to defend was filed by the respondent. Affidavit of the respondent was also filed.
The respondent in his affidavit states that the petitioner is his landlord but not the owner of the tenanted premises. The respondent is in the possession of the tenanted premises since 1975. He is running a general store at the tenanted shop. The petitioner is an "institution/local body" and the present petition could not have been filed u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. For filling an eviction petition the petitioner society is required to be registered.
The President of the petitioner society has filed the present petition for his personal benefit. He wants to shift his business in the tenanted shop. One tenant in shop no. 5 in the petitioner society was got evicted and new tenant was inducted, for this purpose the President of the Society took Rs.11,50,000/-.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner society is situated in E No.34/14 Page 2 to 6 a "Muslim dominated area" (sic) and there are no Buddhist residents in the vicinity of the petitioner society. The tenanted shop is the only source of livelihood of the respondent. The land upon which the building of the society is constructed is owned by DDA. The said building is built on a plot measuring 160 sq. yds. consisting of ground floor, first floor (fully covered), and second floor with terrace. The petitioner has concealed facts about the availability of the alternative accommodation. The space on all the floor is being used by visitors/devotees. The petitioner has not filed correct site plan, only the portion of the ground floor is shown there and the space available on the other floors has been concealed.
5. Reply to the leave to defend was filed by the petitioner, therein the averments of the respondents have been denied and the petitioner has reiterated its stand. It is submitted that the petitioner society was registered vide registration no. F-982 (Bombay).
6. Arguments on leave to defend heard.
6.1 It is stated by the ld. counsel for the petitioner that the tenanted shop is required by the petitioner society for increasing the availability of space to accommodate more visitors/devotees. The tenanted shop and the other shops (for which separate evictions petition have been filed) are existing since 1975. The population has increased since that year, due to this reason the number of visitors/devotees has also increased.
6.2 It was argued by ld. counsel for the respondent that there is not much Buddhist population in the area around the petitioner society i.e property bearing no. D-38/1, New Seelampur, Delhi-53. There is no need for additional space.
E No.34/14 Page 3 to 6 The petitioner has not filed correct site plan. The availability of the space on the first floor and the terrace has been concealed. The petitioner society is unregistered. It could not have filed eviction petition in its own name. Although the petitioner society is the landlord of the respondent, no documents have been placed on record to show that the petitioner society is the owner of the shop. The petitioner society is a public institution, as such it should have filed the petition u/s 22 of the DRC Act.
In the year 2012 the shop bearing private no. 5 in the building of the society complex was got vacated and the same was re-let to another tenant and Rs.11,50,000/- was taken by the President of the Society from the said new tenant. 6.3 In rebuttal, ld. counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner society is registered vide registration no. F-982, Bombay. It was admitted that the building of the society is constructed up-to second floor however, even that is not sufficient to accommodate the devotees.
7. It is was argued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner society is not registered. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner society is registered vide registration no. F-982 Bombay. This submission on behalf of the petitioner was not rebutted by the respondent.
In the affidavit accompanying the application seeking leave to defend, it is stated that the petitioner society is a public institution as such the present petition filed u/s 14(1)(e) is not maintainable.
7.1 In my considered opinion the nomenclature used in the petition is not the deciding factor. If the contents of the petition disclose facts which makes out a case under a particular provision of law, then in such a situation, but for any E No.34/14 Page 4 to 6 special procedural requirement, the petition can be considered under the relevant provision of law.
7.2 In view of the above, the present petition can be decided u/s 22 of the DRC Act. In Shaw Public Trustee vs Day and Others, (1957) 1 All ER 745 it was held that a religious purpose would be included under the category of charitable purpose. Any other purpose beneficial to the society would also be covered under the category of charitable purpose. In the present case the petitioner society is a Buddhist society. It is stated that additional space is required for accommodating the increasing number of devotees. It is not denied by the respondent that the property at D-38/1, New Seelampur, Delhi i.e the building of the society is used for religious purposes. It is a matter of fact that in the last 40 years the population of our country has increased phenomenally. It is the admitted case of the respondent that he is in possession of tenanted shop since 1975. The availability of space has not increased in the building of the petitioner society.
7.3 It was argued on behalf of the respondent that there is not much Buddhist population in the area around the property comprising the tenanted shop. In my considered opinion this argument is without any force. The devotees/visitors can come to a religious place/institution, from far off places.
8. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the tenanted shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for the furtherance of its activities.
9. The respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises. In Section 22 of the DRC Act no minimum period for handing over the possession of the tenanted premises is prescribed. However, in the interest of justice '6 months' time is E No.34/14 Page 5 to 6 granted to the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (RAJINDER SINGH)
Dt. 11/03/2015 ACJ/ARC/CCJ (NE),
KKD COURTS,
DELHI.
E No.34/14 Page 6 to 6
E No.34/14 Page 7 to 6