Delhi District Court
Subhash Manchanda vs Aarya Anathalaya on 18 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MR. SANJAY GARG-I
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT APPEAL NO. 61/2022
CNR No. DLCT01-010046-2022
SUBHASH MANCHANDA,
S/o Sh. Sohan Lal,
R/o B-4, 199-C, Keshavapuram,
Delhi-35.
Also at :11/1488, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-02 ...........Appellant
Versus
AARYA ANATHALAYA,
1488, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi- 02
Through its President,
Sh. Sudhi Kumar Gupta. .......... Respondent
Date of filing of appeal : 07.07.2022
Date of arguments : 04.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I am deciding appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as "the DRC Act") whereby vide impugned order dated 20.04.2022, the petition filed by respondent u/S 22 of DRC Act Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.18 15:52:21 +0530 RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 1 of 11 pertaining to tenanted premises i.e. Unit No.47 of property no. 1488, Ward No. 11, Patuadi House, Daryaganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "property in question") was allowed against the appellant.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent i.e. Arya Anathalaya was founded by late Swami Shraddhanand, a great social reformer in the year 1918, the respondent is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it owns, inter alia a big Campus at 1488, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002. The appellant has been a tenant of Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh in a portion of property bearing no.
11/1488, commonly known as Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 and the rent of the said premises was Rs.6.20/- per month excluding water and electricity charges which are payable by the appellant. Vide legal notice dated 03.12.2005, the tenancy of the appellant was terminated on 15.01.2006 and thereafter appellant became a statutory tenant of Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh, who transferred its entire property at the said Pataudi House including the tenanted premises in the tenancy of the appellant to the respondent without any monetary consideration by an instrument duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar- III, New Delhi on 15.11.2007.
2.1. The Secretary of Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh addressed a letter dated 14.03.2008 to the appellant by registered AD requiring him to pay damages / rent for use and occupation Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.18
15:52:38
+0530
RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 2 of 11
of the tenanted premises of Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh for the period from 01.04.2007 to 15.11.2007 and further asked to pay damages / rent month by month to respondent which has become owner/landlord of the tenanted premises. On receipt of the said letter, the appellant started payment of damages / rent for use and occupation of the tenanted premises to the respondent w.e.f. 16.11.2007. Thereafter, respondent filed petition under Section 22 of DRC Act on the ground of bonafide requirement for the furtherance of the activities.
2.2 On the basis of the evidence led by both the parties, Ld. ARC has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
3. The impugned order has been assailed on various grounds, primarily on the points mentioned below:-
i) The eviction petition dated 14.12.2011 was filed by the respondent against the appellant under the provisions of Section 22 of the DRC Act and the right of the appellant to file written statement was wrongly closed.
ii) The Ld.Trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellant dated 30.05.2012 which was ultimately decided against the appellant vide order dated 22.11.2018.
iii) That the respondent cannot be allowed to be file and pursue/maintain an eviction petition under Section 22 of the DRC Act, 1958 because it is not a public institution being a society Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.18 RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 3 of 11 15:52:46 +0530 registered under the provisions of Society Registration Act, 1860. Appellant is not covered under the provisions of Section 22 of DRC Act.
iv) That Section 22 of DRC Act cannot be invoked by the landlord without impleading all the legal heirs of the original tenant more particularly when the eviction proceedings were initiated after the death of the original tenant.
v) That in absence of any document for transfer of the property, the Ld. Trial Court ought not to have entertained and allowed the eviction petition.
vi) That the respondent has got various other properties and accommodations which are alternative suitable properties and hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on this ground itself as nothing has been discussed at all on this aspect.
ARGUMENTS
4. I have heard arguments of Ld. counsel for appellant Sh. Rakesh Kaushal and Ld. counsel for respondent Sh. Kunal Kalra. I have also perused the record.
5. Ld. counsel for the appellant has reiterated the averments made in the appeal and argued that the respondent is a registered Charitable Trust which per se would not clothe it with the status of the terms "public institution". Section 22 of the DRC Act is not available for every Institution and the concept of "Public Institution" is different than the concept of "Charitable or Religious Trust". The absolute recorded prohibition against the Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 4 of 11 GARG 2025.02.18 15:52:55 +0530 eviction of tenant in Section 14 does not apply for a landlord applying under Section 22 and landlord applying under Section 22 is not restricted merely to the grounds enumerated in the proviso to Section 14 (1) but is enabled to avail himself of "additional grounds" mentioned in Section 22. The respondent cannot be allowed to file and pursue an eviction petition under section 22 of the DRC Act because it is not a Public Institution being a Society registered under the provisions of Society Registration Act, 1860 and hence not covered under the provisions of Section 22 of the DRC Act, in view of the fact that the cause of action, if any, cannot be said to have been accrued against the appellant herein and in favour of the respondent herein as the father of the appellant was the originally inducted tenant and that too by some other landlord. The society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 suffers the exclusion clause of the later part of the Explanation of Section 22 of DRC Act and hence proceeding under Section 22 of DRC Act is not maintainable in law. The provisions of Section 22 of the DRC Act cannot be invoked by the landlord without impleading all the legal heirs of the original tenant more particularly when the eviction proceedings were initiated after the death of the original tenant. The eviction proceedings could not have been maintained in absence of any document for transfer of the property, the Ld. Trial Court ought not to have entertained and allowed the eviction petition. In support of his submissions, Ld. counsel has relied upon decisions in Shanti Swaroop through Lrs. v. Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.18 15:53:02 +0530 RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 5 of 11 Temple Society: 242 (2017) Delhi Law Times 734, Bhim Sewa Batra v. Shreyans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.: 221 (2015) Delhi Law Times 413 and Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust v. Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal: (1973) ILR Delhi 144.
6. Ld. counsel for the respondent has argued that respondent is a society / registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is argued that appellant has been a tenant of Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh in a portion of property bearing no. 11/1488, commonly known as "Pataudi House", Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 and the rent of the said premises is Rs.6.20/- per month excluding water and electricity charges which are payable by the appellant. Vide legal notice dated 03.12.2005 the tenancy of the appellant was terminated on 15.01.2006 and thereafter, appellant became a statutory tenant of Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh. Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh has transferred its entire property at the said Pataudi House including the tenanted premises in the tenancy of the appellant to the respondent without any monetary consideration by an instrument duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi on 15.11.2007 and since thereafter, appellant has been left with no right, title or interest in the said property. Vide letter dated 14.03.2008 Secretary of Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh to the appellant requiring him to pay damages/rent for use and occupation of the tenanted premises to Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh for the period from 01.04.2007 to 15.11.2007 and further asked to pay damages/rent month by month to appellant which has become owner / landlord of the tenanted premises in his Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.18 RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 6 of 11 15:53:09 +0530 occupation. Thereafter, appellant started payment damages/rent for use and occupation of the tenanted premises to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.11.2007. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that respondent is a public institution and the property is bonafidely required by the respondent for furtherance of its charitable activities and rightly passed eviction order under Section 22 of Delhi Rent Control Act while observing that appellant violated the terms of the tenancy and tenanted premises is required bonafide by the respondent for the expansion of its charitable activities.
ANALYSIS
7. As per the impugned order appellant being respondent/tenant before the Ld. Trial Court did not file written submissions and consequently his defence was struck off vide order dated 30.05.2012. The impugned order thereby is an unchallenged order. Despite due opportunity, appellant did not put any of his defence before the Ld. Trial Court.
8. One of the main contention raised on behalf of appellant is that respondent is not a public institution as defined u/s 22 of DRC Act. It is stated that respondent is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and section 22 of DRC Act has been wrongly invoked by the respondent.
9. On the other hand, the plea of the respondent is that appellant had been tenant of Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh in the portion of the property bearing no.11/1488, commonly known as Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.18 15:53:15 +0530 RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 7 of 11 Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Vide legal notice dated 03.12.2005, the tenancy of the appellant was terminated and thereafter Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh has transferred the entire property, including the tenanted premises in the tenancy of appellant, to the respondent without any monetary consideration by an instrument duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-
III, New Delhi on 15.11.2007. It is also stated that appellant have been paying rent of the tenanted premises @ Rs. 620/- per month excluding water and electricity charges.
10. It is not the disputed case of the appellant that he was tenant of Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh regarding the subject property. The plea of the respondent that the said Pataudi House including the tenanted premises got transferred to the respondent by Shraddhanand Sewa Sangh by executing an instrument duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar-III, New Delhi on 15.11.2007, the same stands rightly admitted by Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order.
11. The most relevant point to be considered is, if respondent is a public institution as defined u/s 22 of DRC Act or not? For better appreciation of facts, Section 22 of DRC Act is reproduced as follows:-
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 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.18
15:53:24
RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 8 of 11 +0530
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)....
(b)....
(c)....
(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].
12. The plea of the appellant is that respondent is a society and it is not a public institution. In support of his submissions he has relied upon Shanti Swaroop through Lrs. v. Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society (supra). Here, Court has observed that the trust which had instituted the petition for eviction has not come into existence and was not an active working body with a social impact which could be called an institution. In Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust v. Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal (supra), the Court has considered the distinction between public institution and public trust. It is held that 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 and it is not a legal concept at all. There is no established legal method by which an institution may come into being. It may be established by way of an organization which may assume any or no legal form. It may be a trust or a company or a statutory corporation or a mere Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 9 of 11 GARG Date:
2025.02.18 15:53:31 +0530 unincorporated association or a society registered or otherwise. It is its work and place in the society that is the hallmark of an institution.
13. As observed by the Court in Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust Vs Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal (supra), an institution is primarily a social concept and is not a legal concept. Respondent is a society and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. What work it does is the most relevant consideration to see if it falls under the definition of public institution. It is further relevant to mention here that public institution is not defined anywhere in this Act.
14. Respondent in his evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A has stated that it is a public institution and engaged in the running of orphanage and school. This un-controverted testimony of the respondent before Ld. Trial Court has been rightly appreciated in para no.7 of the impugned order. The same runs as follows:-
"7. The petitioner is seeking eviction of the respondent by filing this petition on the grounds that the petitioner bonafide requires the tenanted premises for the furtherance of its activities. The respondent has acted in contravention of the terms under which he was authorized to occupy the tenanted premises, in as much as he has defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f 01.01.2011 to the petitioner."
15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, appellant has failed to show any valid reason to interfere in the observation of the Ld. Trial Court holding respondent as public institution as provided u/s 22 of DRC Act.
Digitally signed by SANJAYSANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.02.18 15:53:40 +0530 RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 10 of 11
16. The other contention raised on behalf of appellant is that provisions of Section 22 of DRC Act cannot be invoked by the respondent without impleading all the legal heirs of the original tenant more particularly when the eviction proceedings were initiated after the death of the original tenant. Appellant is in occupation of the tenanted premises. As per settled law, tenancy of one tenant is joint tenancy of all. Hence, this plea has no substance and same is thereby dismissed.
DECISION
17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the various grounds of appeal raised here are found without merit. I found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2022. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
18. The Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order.
19. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SANJAYAnnounced in the open Court SANJAY GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.18
on 18th February, 2025 15:53:45
+0530
(SANJAY GARG-I)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
RCT ARCT No.61/2022 Subhash Manchanda v. Aarya Anathalaya Page 11 of 11