Delhi District Court
Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) vs Shri Raj Kumar @ Raju on 12 March, 2015
1
In the Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal
CCJ cum Additional Rent Controller1(Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Case No. E 68/10
Unique ID No. 02401C0235762010
In the matter of :
Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.)
16/598H, Bapa Nagar,
Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005. ............Petitioner
Versus
Shri Raj Kumar @ Raju
S/o late Shri Dharam Singh
R/o 16/626, Block H, Bapa Nagar,
Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005.
And
16/598H, Bapa Nagar,
Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005. ........Respondent
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
22 (d) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
Page 1 of 8 Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju E-68/10
2
Date of Institution: 01.06.2010
Final arguments heard/case reserved for Judgment: 29.01.2015
Date of Judgment: 12.03.2015
Decision: Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) against the respondent Sh. Raj Kumar for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., one shop measuring 8 x 6 ft. in property bearing no. 16/598H, Bapa Nagar, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith petition, on the grounds u/s 22 (d) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act'].
2. It is averred by Sh. Chuni Lal Aluriya, i.e., the authorized representative of the petitioner society that the petitioner is a society duly registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. The AR of the society was authorized by way of a resolution passed by the society on 04.04.2010 for filing the present petition. The respondent is a tenant with respect of the premises forming part of 16/598H, Karol Bagh, Bapa Nagar, Hardhyan Singh Road, New Delhi under the petitioner. It is averred by the petitioner that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for furtherance of its activities and for running of a library for Page 2 of 8 Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju E-68/10 3 imparting spiritual as well as other education to the needed persons and even common men which is also provided under the provisions of Societies Registration Act and also for the benefit of common men. Further, it is averred by the petitioner that the petitioner has no accommodation for the said purpose and therefore, the petitioner intends to construct the entire Mandir area of the ground floor except the shop in front of the same for the purpose of Satsang hall and to shift the Mandir on the first floor. Hence, on the above stated grounds, the petitioner filed the present eviction petition u/s 22 (d) of the DRC Act since the petitioner society is a public institution and the bonafide requirement of the petitioner is for the furtherance of the activities of the said public institution.
3. Summons were served upon the respondent who filed written statement stating that the petitioner is not a public institution, rather the same is a religious society, which cannot fall within the definition of the public institution as per the provisions of the DRC Act. It is further submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has no requirement of the tenanted premises and the sole purpose of the petitioner behind filing the present petition is to pressurize the respondent to pay rent at a higher rate. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also filed same petition on the same ground against another tenant, namely, Bhagwat Prasad Page 3 of 8 Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju E-68/10 4 and therefore, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner with a malafide intention.
4. Replication to the written statement of respondent was filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner denied all the averments made by the respondent in his written statement and further reiterated the facts as mentioned in the petition.
5. During evidence, the AR of the petitioner Sh. Chuni Lal Aluriya stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed on the lines of the petition. Further, he relied upon the following documents:
a) Registration certificate of the petitioner society : Ex. PW1/1
b) Resolution dated 04.04.2010 : Ex. PW1/2 c) Site plan : Ex. PW1/3
d) Copy of Memorandum : Ex. PW1/4
6. During crossexamination it was stated by PW1 that Shiv Sewa Samiti was in existence since 1952 and was thereafter registered against the name of Sh. Vishnu Mandir, Bapa Nagar, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Further, it was stated that the said society was framed for the purpose of social welfare, education, cultural, charitable dispensary, opening of library and elimination of social evils. Further, PW1 stated that he could not present the Memorandum of the Society as Page 4 of 8 Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju E-68/10 5 the same has been lost but no evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove that the said memorandum has been lost.
7. In his turn, the respondent himself entered into the witness box as RW1 and deposed on the lines of written statement. Further, he relied upon the following documents:
a) Rent receipts : Ex. DW1/A(Colly)
b) Copy of order dated 19.02.2010 : Ex. DW1/B
c) Electricity bills issued by BSES : Ex. DW1/C
d) Receipt of Rs. 4,500/ deposited by defendant in BSES : Ex. DW1/D
8. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and have also gone through the judicial record.
9. Section 22 of the DRC Act states as under: "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 Page 5 of 8 Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju E-68/10 6 evicting the tenant and every other 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.
10. In the present case, eviction has been sought by the petitioner against the respondent on the ground that the petitioner society is a public institution and therefore, since the need of the petitioner society is for the furtherance of its activities, therefore, the present petition has been filed u/s 22 (d) of the DRC Act. The respondent, on the other hand, has disputed the fact that the petitioner society is a public institution and also that there is any bonafide requirement of the petitioner society.
11. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record.
12. As per the explanation provided in Section 22 of the DRC Act - 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]. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that it is an educational institution, library, hospital or a charitable dispensary. The petitioner Page 6 of 8 Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju E-68/10 7 society has sought establishment of library as its bonafide requirement but it is not its case that it is presently running any library. The case put forward by the petitioner is that presently the petitioner society is running a Mandir and now in the tenanted accommodation they want to open a library for public use.
13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Justice K. Chandru that if the temples are substantially financed by the State either in the form of administrative expenses or in the form of nonrecurring expenditure, then the said temple would lie under the definition of public institution and would come under the provisions of RTI Act. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner society that the petitioner society is getting grants from the government for running the said temple. The only contention made by the petitioner is that it is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act but this registration does not make the society come under the purview of public institution. Even otherwise, not even a Memorandum has been filed by the petitioner society to show as to what was the objectives of the society and whether it is receiving any funds from the State for the purpose of its objectives or not. In these circumstances, petitioner society can be termed as nothing but a religious institution which does not fall within the definition of public institution. Since the petitioner society cannot be said to fall under the Page 7 of 8 Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju E-68/10 8 definition of public institution, therefore, no eviction petition is maintainable u/s 22 (d) of the DRC Act.
14. In view of the above stated discussion, the present petition filed by the petitioner u/s 22 (d) of the DRC Act is dismissed as rejected. No orders as to costs.
Announced in open Court (Namrita Aggarwal)
on 12 Day of March, 2015.
th
CCJ cum ARC1 (Central)
[This judgment contains 08 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 8 of 8 Shiv Sewa Samiti (Regd.) Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju E-68/10