Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 22 of drc act in Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust vs Gopal Kishan Verma on 27 May, 2025Matching Fragments
2025.05.27 19:00:26 +0530 RC ARC 9/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Vs. Mr. Gopal Krishan Verma pg. no. 7/29 the petitioners been bonafide, the aforesaid property would not have been sold.
12.8. That the instant petition is per se not maintainable U/s 14(1) (e) of DRC Act as said section can only be invoked in case of an individual, however, herein the bonafide need is stated to be that of a Trust and in such a situation Section 22 of DRC Act is applicable and on this ground alone the petition is defective.
17.The nub of the issue in the entire leave to defend application has been enumerated in paragraph 12 above which primarily circles around the assertion that petitioner No. 3 is the actual show runner and rest of the petitioners/ Trustees are merely decoys and, that the petitioner No. 1 is a Trust for namesake as the Trust has not done anything as per its objectives for the past thirty years and that the present petition itself is defective being filed U/s 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act instead of Section 22 of DRC Act.
23.8. The biggest bone of contention between the parties is with respect to maintainability of the petition U/s 14 (1)(e) of CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27 19:01:26 +0530 RC ARC 9/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Vs. Mr. Gopal Krishan Verma pg. no. 18/29 Delhi Rent Control Act, as respondents have strongly asserted that the correct provision of law to be invoked in the present proceedings is Section 22 of DRC Act. To understand the objection, it is first necessary to refer to Section 22 of the Act which reads as under:-
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.
On perusal of the provision, it is found that Section 22 of DRC Act is drafted specifically for landlords which are company, other body corporate, local authority or any public institution. It is the version of the respondents that the petitioner No. 1 would fall into the category of the public institution and not a private Trust as the objectives of the Trust was to serve general public by using the property for charitable purposes such as running of dispensary, educational institution, library and other social activities and for religious purposes of the Hindu Community. It is also argued that interplay between Section 22 and 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act has been considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgment titled as K. S. Bhandari Vs. International Security Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Frontier Sales Vs. Superior Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL ASIWAL Date: