Delhi District Court
Harijan Sewak Sangh vs Shri Jai Prakash Tyagi on 9 December, 2011
E.No.46/09
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K.JANGALA :
ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER: NORTHWEST:ROHINI: DELHI
E. No.46/09
U/S 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act, 1958
Harijan Sewak Sangh
A Society Registered under the Society
Registration Act
Kingsway Camp, Delhi
Through its Secretary ......... Petitioner
Versus
Shri Jai Prakash Tyagi
R/o Staff Quarter No.31,
Harijan Sewak Sangh Campus
Kingsway Camp, Delhi ......... Respondent
Date of institution: 16.07.2009
Date of final arguments: 23.11.2011
Date of judgment : 09.12.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. The petitioner Harijan Sewak Sangh a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, Kingsway Camp, Delhi filed the present petition for eviction of the respondent u/s 22 read with Section 14(1)(i) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called DRC Act). It is stated by the petitioner that petitioner is an organization established by father of nation, Mahatma Gandhi for welfare and Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 1 of 24 E.No.46/09 upliftment of Harijans. It is stated by the petitioner that suit premises is bearing premises No.31 in property No.4, Harijan Sewak Sangh Campus, Kingsway Camp, Delhi which consists of two rooms, kitchen, verandah, bathroom and W.C, as shown red in the site plan.
2. It is stated that the respondent is a tenant in the suit premises which was allotted to the respondent as a tenant for use as a residence only during his service/employment of the landlord for discharging his duties. It is stated that respondent has retired from the service of the petitioner on 01.11.2002 and despite repeated requests/written notices he has failed to vacate the suit premises. It is stated that suit premises is also required by the petitioner being public institution for furtherance of its activities such as for housing and residential accommodation for other employee working with the petitioner society so as to enable them to live in the campus and to render better services to the petitioner in efficient manner.
3. It is stated that the rent of the suit premises is Rs.300/ per month according to English Calendar month.
4. It is stated that the notice dated 22.4.2003 and 13.6.2009 were served upon the respondent asking him to vacate the premises but despite that the respondent has not vacated the Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 2 of 24 E.No.46/09 premises.
5. It is stated that the secretary of the petitioner society is authorised to file the petition vide resolution dated 08.7.2009. It is prayed that respondent be directed to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises as shown in the site plan and eviction order may kindly be passed.
6. The notice of the petition was issued to the respondent and the respondent filed the written statement. The respondent raised the preliminary objections that petitioner has not approached to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the true and correct facts. It is stated that respondent joined the services of the petitioner in the year 1956 and retired on 01.11.2002. It is stated that the respondent during the course of his employment was provided accommodation in the suit premises as a licencee. It is stated that the respondent has been regularly tendering the licence and other charges to the petitioner. However, the petitioner has issued few receipts of licence fee tendered by the respondent. It is stated that after retirement the petitioner has created independent tenancy in favour of the respondent and charging rent at the rate of Rs.119.70P excluding other charges because the respondent was paying the same as licence fee during the course of his employment. It is stated that petitioner has let out the tenancy Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 3 of 24 E.No.46/09 premises to the respondent because it has already started running commercial activities in the campus area. It is stated that in the campus area there was Harijan Udyog Shala (ITI) which was closed down and now the petitioner has let out different portions of ITI to the students studying in North Campus Delhi University and almost 200250 students are residing in different portions of ITI and the petitioner is charging Rs.1500/ to Rs.2,000/ per month towards rent and food respectively from each student. It is stated that petitioner has let out hostel of ITI consisting of 12 rooms to different tenants. It is stated that apart from this, in the campus there is a Kasturba Kutir having five rooms on the ground and first floor which are also in occupation of different tenants.
7. It is stated that there was a shop in Kingsway Camp of Khadi Gram Udhyog and the petitioner about 6/7 years ago has let out the conference hall situated in the campus. It is also stated that petitioner has also let out a portion of ITI to North Delhi Kathak Center and charging handsome rent from it. It is stated that the said North Delhi Kathak Center is an independent entity and running its activities as an independent body.
8. It is also stated that petitioner used to provide residential accommodation to its employees only. However, in flat No.13 one Mr. Luis is residing for the last 15 years as a tenant, who is Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 4 of 24 E.No.46/09 employed with PWD. Likewise the respondent is an independent tenant in the tenanted premises. It is stated that the respondent is also having separate electricity connection in his name.
9. It is stated that about 30 years back the petitioner has let out a portion in the campus to the Canara Bank and charging handsome rent from the said bank. It is stated that petitioner is running commercial activities in the campus by letting out different portions to the different tenants. It is stated that about 15 employees are working in the office of the petitioner society and they are occupying their respective flats and more than 10 flats are still lying vacant, therefore, there is sufficient accommodation available with the petitioner society to provide the same to its employees working with it.
10. It is stated that the tenancy premises could fetch rent more than the rent paid by the respondent, therefore, the petitioner has started pressurizing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises. It is stated that the petitioner kept silent for seven years after his retirement and had let out the tenanted premises to the respondent independently.
11. It is stated that petition is not maintainable under DRC Act because the notices dated 22.4.2003 and 03.6.2009 suggests that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 5 of 24 E.No.46/09 and further the respondent was granted a licence to use and occupy the premises in question in lieu of his employment with the petitioner. It is stated that the alleged rent was deducted at the time of payment of the salary of the respondent.
12. It is stated that petition is not maintainable as the same has not been signed, verified and instituted by the competent person of the petitioner society and same is liable to be rejected.
13. The petitioner has filed the replication and denied the submissions of the written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the facts as stated in the petition.
14. The relevant and material extract of the evidence produced by the parties are as under:
The petitioner filed the evidence of PW1 Shri Hira Paul Gangnegi, Secretary of the petitioner by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW1 proved the resolution dated 08.7.2009 Ex.PW1/1; certificate of registration of society Ex.PW1/2 and constitution of the petitioner society as Ex.PW1/3. The site plan of the suit property is proved as Ex.PW1/4; the notice dated 22.4.2003 and 13.6.2009 are proved as Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6.
During cross examination PW1 stated that he has been authorised by the Central Board and Executive Committee to proceed with the case and resolution in his favour is on record. It Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 6 of 24 E.No.46/09 is admitted that the minutes of the said meeting are not on record. It is denied that he is not authorised to institute the present petition. It is denied that he is not authorised to depose by virtue of Ex.PW1/1. It is stated that respondent was a licencee during the period of his employment and he retired in November 2002. It is stated that notice Ex.PW1/6 has been issued as per his instructions. PW1 admitted the receipt dated 02.9.2002 Ex.PW1/R1. It is stated that he has no idea how many persons are employed with the petitioner. It is stated that he cannot tell the exact number of rooms. It is stated that some rooms are unoccupied as they are under renovation at present. It is admitted that the children hostel shown in photograph Ex.PW1/R2 is lying vacant. It is stated that he cannot say whether premises No.35 as shown in photograph Ex.PW1/R3 is occupied or vacant. It is stated that premises shown in photograph Ex.PW1/R4 is presently unoccupied due to renovation. It is stated that one Kathak Centre was started about three years ago in the campus and it was started as per the request of Ministry of Culture. It is stated that they ask for the requisite SC/ST Certificate before allotment of premises and it is not necessary that the same are submitted to them. It is stated that they are receiving Rs.80,000/ per month from Kathak Centre. It is admitted that one Mr. Philip Louis is electrician who is helping Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 7 of 24 E.No.46/09 the petitioner's society regarding the electrical works. He further stated that he does not remember where he is working. It is stated that one doctor has been provided the accommodation by the petitioner society. It is stated that there are 190 primary students and 60 students of university. It is denied that respondent is residing as independent tenant as similar to those other persons who are residing as tenants. It is denied that there are sufficient accommodation available with the petitioner society to provide to other employees of the petitioner.
15. The respondent also filed his evidence by way of affidavit and proved the same as Ex.RW1/A and deposed in terms of his written statement. During cross examination RW1 admitted that the suit premises was allotted to him by the petitioner during the course of his employment with the petitioner. It is admitted that he is still residing in the suit premises after his retirement on 01.11.2002. It is stated that there is no written agreement with regard to fresh tenancy. It is stated that in the suit property he along with his ten family members are residing. It is admitted by him that he has constructed a tin shed adjacent to the suit property without the consent of anybody. It is also admitted by him that he has installed one borewell in the property without any consent. It is stated that he has applied for fresh electricity connection with Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 8 of 24 E.No.46/09 NDPL without the consent of the petitioner society. It is stated that he has paid the rental charges upto February 2009. It is stated that during the course of his employment the government aid was received by the petitioner society. It is admitted that he is having 800 Sq. yds plot in Wazirabad. It is admitted that his sons are well settled.
16. RW2 Shri Satish Chander, Record Clerk from Transport Department proved the summoned record of vehicle bearing registration No.DL5SL 0027 which was sold by M/s R.S. Ajit Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd in the name of Shri Alexander Philip. The copy of the document was proved as Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.PW2/8.
17. RW3 Shri Laxmi Narain, Record Keeper from Chief Electoral Office, Kashmere Gate, Delhi produced the summoned record and proved the same as Ex.RW3/1. He also proved the electoral list Ex.RW3/2 wherein the name of Shri Alexander Philip and his wife Smt. Mariamma Alex is appearing at Serial No.865 and 866.
18. RW4 Shri Ramesh Kumar, Record Keeper, Transport Department, North Zone, Mall Road, Delhi produced the summoned record of vehicle bearing registration No.DL3CV0056 in the name of Ms. Mariamma Alex and proved the copy of the same as Ex.RW4/1.
19. RW5 Shri A.K. Batra, Assistant Administrator, Kathak Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 9 of 24 E.No.46/09 Kendar, Bhawal Pur House, Bhagwan Dass Road, Delhi produced the summoned record. RW5 deposed that as per record produced by him Kathak Kendar Harijan Sewak Sangh, Kingsway Camp, Delhi has occupied the first floor of ITI, Udhyogshala Area having 600 Sq. ft in terms of rent agreement dated 12.12.2007 at monthly rent of Rs.1,05,000/ excluding other charges. He proved the copy of rent agreement Ex.RW5/1. It is stated that the said agreement is still continuing.
During cross examination RW5 admitted that said Kathak Kendar is running under the supervision of Ministry of Culture, Government of India. It is admitted that the rent received by the petitioner society from the Kathak Kendra is minimum charges just for maintenance. It is admitted that the petitioner society is a welfare society working for the downtrodden people.
20. RW6 Shri Ramesh Chander, LDC from PWD office of Executive Engineer (Electrical) produced the summoned record i.e. service book of Shri Alexander Phillips. As per the record the date of appointment of Shri Alexander Phillips is 22.01.1996 who is working in PWD as wireman. The copy of the service book is proved as Ex.RW6/a. It is stated that he is still working in PWD in the same capacity.
During cross examination RW6 stated that local address of Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 10 of 24 E.No.46/09 Shri Alexander Phillips is BC117C Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It is stated that duty hours of Shri Alexandar Phillips is from 9 a.m to 5 p.m.
21. The relevant provisions of Section 22 of DRC Act is reproduced as under:
Section 22: "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 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].
22. In the present case the petitioner has filed the present petition u/s 22 read with Section 14(1)(i) of DRC Act. It is claimed Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 11 of 24 E.No.46/09 by the petitioner that it is a charitable organization established by 'father of nation' Mahatma Gandhi for the welfare and upliftment of Harijans and it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act . The provisions of Section 22 are applicable only to company, body corporate, local authority or public institution. As per the explanation given in this Section "public institution" includes any educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a charitable organization and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The aims and objectives of the petitioner society makes it clear that it falls within the definition of 'public institution' as given u/s 22 of DRC Act. The Hon'ble High Court in a judgment reported as "Chunni Lal Vs. University of Delhi, 1977 RCR 742"
has held that :
"The relationship of sections 14 and 22, is that all landlords are able to apply under section 14 but only the landlords who are corporate bodies or public institution are entitled to apply under section
22. This necessarily means that such corporate and public institution landlords have been given the ordinary grounds under section 14 and additional grounds under section 22. This accords with their position of being primarily similar to natural persons and sometimes being different from them, that the corporate and public institution landlords are entitled to the ordinary grounds of eviction under Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 12 of 24 E.No.46/09 section 14 like other landlords and also to the special grounds of eviction under section 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 benefit of section 14."
In view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court it is clear that the grounds available to the corporate body and public institution u/s 22 of DRC Act are in addition to the grounds available to them u/s 14 of DRC Act.
23. In the present case the petitioner society filed the present petition u/s 22 of DRC Act. Even though it is not specified in the petition whether it is based on grounds (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Section 22 of DRC Act. However, from the pleadings of the petitioner and averments made in the petition it is clear that the petitioner has made the averments regarding clause (a) and (d) of Section 22 of DRC Act. Therefore, I consider this petition u/s 22 (a) and (d) of DRC Act.
24. PETITION UNDER SECTION 22 (a) OF DRC ACT.
"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, Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 13 of 24 E.No.46/09 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".
25. It is stated by the petitioner that petitioner is an organization established by the 'father of nation' Mahatma Gandhi for welfare and upliftment of Harijans and it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is stated that the suit premises was allotted to the respondent for use as residence during his service/employment for discharge of his duties. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent has retired on 01.11.2002 and despite repeated requests/written notices he has failed to vacate the suit premises.
26. The respondent in the written statement has admitted that he joined the services of the petitioner in the year 1956 and retired on 01.11.2002. It is stated that the respondent during the course of his employment was provided accommodation referred as tenanted premises as a licencee and the respondent has been regularly tendering the licence and other charges to the petitioner.
27. The petitioner examined PW1 Secretary of the petitioner Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 14 of 24 E.No.46/09 society who deposed in terms of the petition. PW1 proved resolution in his favour Ex.PW1/1, the certificate of registration of the petitioner society as Ex.PW1/2; and constitution of the petitioner society as Ex.PW1/3. The site plan of the suit property is proved as Ex.PW1/4. The notice dated 22.4.2003 and 13.6.2009 are proved as Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6. The respondent also examined himself as RW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A and deposed in terms of his written statement. The respondent also examined RW2 Shri Satish Chander, Record Clerk from Transport Department, RW3 Shri Laxmi Narain, Record Keeper from Chief Electoral Office, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, RW4 Shri Ramesh Kumar, Record Keeper, Transport Department, North Zone, Mall Road, Delhi, RW5 Shri A.K. Batra, Assistant Administration, Kathak Kendar, Bhawal Pur House, Bhagwan Dass Road, Delhi. The respondent has examined RW2 to RW6 to prove the residence of Shri Alexander Phillips in other portions of the area of the petitioner society. The respondent during his cross examination has admitted that the suit premises was let out to him by the petitioner during the course of his employment with the petitioner society. It is an admitted fact that he is still residing in the suit premises after his retirement on 01.11.2002. It is also admitted by him that there is no written agreement with regard to Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 15 of 24 E.No.46/09 fresh tenancy.
28. I have carefully perused the material on record and gone through the submissions of both the parties. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has examined the secretary of the petitioner society as PW1 who deposed in terms of the petition and respondent during his cross examination has admitted all the necessary ingredients for the grant of relief u/s 22(a) of DRC Act. Therefore, eviction petition may kindly be allowed.
On the other hand it is submitted by counsel for respondent that petitioner has failed to prove the necessary ingredients for the grant of relief u/s 22(a) of DRC Act. It is stated that the petitioner has failed to prove the resolution passed in favour of PW1. It is stated that PW1 was not authorised to depose. It is stated that cross examination of PW1 reveals that he was not having knowledge about the facts of the case.
29. In the present case it is stated by the petitioner that the respondent was employed with the petitioner society and the suit premises was allotted to the respondent for use as a residence when he was in service of the petitioner society. It is stated that respondent has ceased to be in the service/employment of the petitioner society.
Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 16 of 24 E.No.46/09
The respondent during his cross examination has admitted that suit premises was let out to him for use as a residence when he was in service of the petitioner. It is also admitted by the respondent that he has ceased to be in service/employment of the petitioner society. The facts admitted by the parties need not to be proved. The respondent in his cross examination has admitted all the necessary ingredients for the grant of relief u/s 22(a) of DRC Act.
30. The counsel for the respondent has raised the contention that the resolution in favour of PW1 was not duly proved, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. During cross examination the respondent has not disputed that PW1 is the secretary of the petitioner society. PW1 has placed on record constitution and certificate of registration of petitioner society. As per the constitution of the petitioner society the secretary of the petitioner society is competent to depose. PW1 has produced the resolution Ex.PW1/1 in his favour. The extracts of original resolution dated 08.7.2009 produced by PW1 has been proved as Ex.PW1/1. So there is no reason to raise doubt upon the authenticity of document Ex.PW1/1. Therefore, PW1 is competent to depose on the basis of Ex.PW1/1 and also on the basis of his d Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 17 of 24 E.No.46/09 esignation as secretary in the petitioner society. Therefore, this contention of counsel for respondent is not tenable in the eyes of law.
31. In view of above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has proved all the necessary ingredients for the grant of relief u/s 22(a) of DRC Act. Hence the petition u/s 22(a) of DRC Act regarding the suit premises i.e. premises No.31 in property No.4, Harijan Sewak Sangh Campus, Kingsway Camp, Delhi is allowed with costs. The respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises and handover its peaceful and vacant possession to the petitioner society within one month from the date of passing of this judgment.
32. PETITION UNDER SECTION 22(d) OF DRC ACT The provisions of Section 22(d) of DRC Act is reproduced as under: Section (22): "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 Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 18 of 24 E.No.46/09 tenant and everyother person who may be in occupation thereof, if the Controller is satisfied."
(d) that the premises are required bona fide by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities."
33. It is stated by the petitioner that suit premises was let out as a residence during the service/employment of the respondent for discharging the duties and the respondent has retired from the service of the petitioner society on 01.11.2002 and despite repeated requests/written notices he has failed to vacate the suit premises. It is stated that the suit premises is also required by the petitioner being public institution for furtherance of its activities such as housing and residential accommodation for other employee working with the petitioner society so as to enable them to live in the campus and to render better services to the petitioner in efficient manner.
34. The respondent in his written statement has denied the submissions of the petitioner. It is denied that the suit premises is required by the petitioner for furtherance of its activities for using residential accommodation of other employees working with the petitioner society. It is stated that after retirement the petitioner has created independent tenancy in favour of the respondent and charging rent at the rate of Rs.119.70P excluding other charges because the respondent was paying the same as licence fee Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 19 of 24 E.No.46/09 during the course of his employment. It is stated that the petitioner has let out tenancy premises to the respondent because it has already started running commercial activities in the campus area. It is stated that in the campus area there is Harijan Udyog Shala (ITI) which was closed down and now the petitioner has let out different portions of ITI to the students studying in North Campus Delhi University and almost 200250 students are residing in different portions of ITI and the petitioner is charging Rs.1500/ to Rs.2,000/ per month towards rent and food respectively from each student. It is stated that petitioner has let out hostel of ITI consisting of 12 rooms to different tenants. It is stated that in the campus there is a Kasturba Kutir having five rooms on the ground and first floor which are also in occupation of different tenants.
35. It is stated that there is a shop in Kingsway Camp of Khadi Gram Udhyog and the petitioner about 67 years ago has let out the conference hall situated in the campus. It is also stated that petitioner has also let out a portion of ITI to North Delhi Kathak Center and charging handsome rent from it.
36. The petitioner examined its secretary as PW1 who deposed in terms of the petition and relied upon the document as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6. PW1 during his cross examination has stated that he has no idea how many persons are presently employed with the Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 20 of 24 E.No.46/09 petitioner society. It is stated that at present some rooms are unoccupied as they were under renovation. It is stated that he cannot say whether premises No.35 as shown in photograph Ex.PW1/R3 is occupied or vacant. It is admitted that the premises shown in photographs Ex.PW1/R4 is presently unoccupied due to renovation. It is stated that one Kathak Centre was started about three years ago in the campus and it was started as per the request of Ministry of Culture. It is stated that they asked for the requisite SC/ST Certificate before allotment of premises and it is not necessary that the same are submitted to them and they see the said certificate only. It is denied that respondent is residing as a tenant similar to other who are residing as a tenant. It is voluntary stated that there are no tenants. It is denied that there is sufficient accommodation available with the petitioner society to provide to other employees of the petitioner society.
The respondent has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and proved the same as Ex.RW1/A and deposed in terms of his written statement. The respondent examined RW2 to RW6 to prove the address of Shri Alexander Phillips in the area of petitioner society.
37. It is already held while deciding the petition u/s 22(a) of DRC Act that petitioner society is a pubic institution and competent to file Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 21 of 24 E.No.46/09 the petition u/s 22(a) of DRC Act.
38. It is stated by the petitioner that suit premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner for furtherance of its activities. The petitioner society has proved on record its certificate of registration and constitution as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3.
39. The respondent has examined himself and other witness to prove that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide. The respondent has stated that the petitioner society has let out other portions of its premises to various tenants. It is stated that the petitioner society has recently let out one portion to one Kathak Centre. It is stated that the petitioner society has also given on rent one premises to Shri Alexander Phillips and all these facts shows that the need of the petitioner society is not bonafide.
40. The respondent has proved the existence of one Kathak Class Centre in the premises of the petitioner society. However, PW1 has given the explanation regarding the existence of Kathak Centre that it was opened at the request of Ministry of Culture, Government of India. The record summoned by the respondent from 'Kathak Centre' also established that the same is being run under the aegis of Ministry of Culture, Government of India. Therefore, merely on the basis of letting out the premises to Kathak Centre, it cannot be said that need of the petitioner society Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 22 of 24 E.No.46/09 is not bonafide.
41. It is also stated by the respondent that the petitioner society has let out various rooms to students who are residing as tenant. PW1 has deposed that these premises were let out to the students who belong to SC/ST categories. It is also stated that the petitioner society is not charging market rent from the students. The petitioner society was created by the Father of Nation Mahatma Gandhi for the upliftment of Harijans. Therefore, providing shelters to the students who belong to SC/ST Categories at a rate lessor than the market rate does not raise the doubt upon the bonafide of the petitioner.
42. The respondent has also proved the presence of one Shri Alexander Phillips in the premises of the petitioner society. It is also proved that Shri Alexander Phillips is employed with PWD as wireman. However, PW1 has given the explanation that Shri Alexander Phillips is working as an electrician who is helping the petitioner society qua electrical work. The respondent has merely proved the presence of one Shri Alexander Phillips in the premises of the petitioner society. However, the status of said Shri Alexander Phillips as tenant in the suit premises is not proved by the respondent. The respondent has failed to prove that Shri Alexander Phillips is residing in the premises of the petitioner Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 23 of 24 E.No.46/09 society as an independent tenant without providing any service to the petitioner society. Therefore, this ground raised by the respondent also does not create any doubt upon the bonafide of the petitioner.
43. It is no doubt true that the need of the petitioner society to provide the accommodation to its employees for furtherance of its activities is the bonafide requirement. Therefore, in view of above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner has proved all the necessary ingredients of grant of relief u/s 22(d) of DRC Act that the suit premises is required bonafide by the petitioner society as the same is an public institution for furtherance of its activities to provide the accommodation to its employees who are rendering their services to the petitioner society. Accordingly the petition u/s 22(d) of DRC Act regarding suit premises i.e. premises No.31 in property No.4, Harijan Sewak Sangh Campus, Kingsway Camp, Delhi is allowed with costs. The respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises and handover its peaceful and vacant possession to the petitioner society within one month from the date of passing of this judgment Announced in the open court ( Devender Kr. Jangala) on 09.12.2011 Addl. Rent Controller: Rohini This judgment contains 24 pages and each page bear my signatures Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 24 of 24 E.No.46/09 Harijan Sewak Sangh Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi Page 25 of 24