Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondent in the prescribed format which was duly served on the respondent, in response to which the respondent filed his leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit.

4. The respondent filed leave to defend application inter-alia on the following grounds :-

i. Section 22 of DRC Act over-rides Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in so far as ground of bonafide requirement is concerned.
i. He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him. iii. He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

8. The respondent has argued that the present petition is not maintainable under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, and the petition should have been filed under Section 22 DRC Act. It is argued that the petitioner in a trust and the legal issue with respect to the maintainability of an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act by a juristic person is subject matter of a reference vide order dated 22.12.2017 in RC. REV. 18/2016 titled as 'K.S. Bhandari v. M/s International Security Printers Pvt. Ltd'. It is stated that since the matter is pending before the larger bench, the petition shall not be decided in favour of petitioner.

16. A conjoint reading of two Sections i.e. Section 14(1)(e) and Section 22 of the DRC Act does not show that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or a public institution cannot apply for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

Reference may be had to the judgment of this court in the case of Bhim Sen Batra v. Shreyans Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.. That was a case in which a petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act by the landlord stating that the landlord Company was incurring losses and is seeking to revamp its business and requires the place occupied by the tenant for building proper infrastructure and office to be used by its employees. An objection was raised that if a company or body corporate requires the premises for the use of its employees, Section 22 of the DRC Act would apply and not Section 14(1)

"9. This Court in the case of Chunni Lal v. University of Delhi reported in 1970 RCR 742 drew a distinction between Sections 14 and 22 of DRC Act in the following terms:
...The relationship of Sections 14 and 22, therefore, 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. I therefore, find that the corporate and public institution landlords are entitled to the ordinary grounds of eviction under 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 form the benefit of Section 14.