Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 22 of drc act in M/S S. Chand & Co vs Sh. Jay Kant Mishra on 19 November, 2011Matching Fragments
15. Section 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act provides as under : That the premises were let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord, and that the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment ;
16. Section 22 of DRC Act provides as under : 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 in 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 :
or
(d) that the premises are required bonafide 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.
17. The present petitions were filed u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act and Section 22 of DRC Act. Under the provisions of both the abovesaid sections the petitioners have to prove that the respondent was working with the petitioner no. 1 company and let out the suit premises to the respondent as its employee and the respondent is no longer in employment with the petitioner no. 1. It is not in dispute that the respondent has joined the petitioner no. 1 company in the year 1992. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was in //22// the employment of the petitioner no. 1 in the year 1998. The sale deed Ex. PW1/4 also proves that petitioner no. 2 purchased the suit property. Petitioner no. 1 is merely claiming its landlordship qua the suit premises as allotted it to the respondent being its employee to live alongwith his family. It is well settled that landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership u/s 22 and u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act. It is held in Kamla Rani & Ors. Vs. Texmaco Ltd. (supra) that u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act ownership is not relevant for the reason a person may be landlord without being an owner. It is held in T.R.Balasubramanian Vs. Shriram Scientific & Industrial Research that section 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act does not require that employer should be owner of the building or premises given on rent to the employee as tenant.
21. In view of the above discussion, it is proved that neither the respondent nor his father was in possession of the suit premises since 1965. The respondent has also failed to establish that he is in possession of the suit premises in his own capacity. On the other hand the petitioners have proved that the respondent rejoined the petitioner no. 1 company on 01.05.1998 and the petitioner no.. 1 allowed the respondent to live in one room on the first floor in property no. 19, Radha Madhav Mandir, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, //31// New Delh being its employee. The petitioner no. 1 had given only one room to the respondent to live, however, the respondent had encroached the adjacent accommodation as shown in green color in the site plan. It is held in Sukumari Dass and Ors. Vs. Musst Saleha Khatoon and Ors., 2011 (1) RCJ 19 (Cal.) that in course of eviction proceedings against a tenant if it is found that tenant concerned has trespassed into other portions of suit holding which lie outside demised premises and has made unauthorized constructions thereon, decree for eviction can also be passed in respect of trespassed area provided there are proper pleadings and evidence in support of such case. It is not necessary to relegate a plaintiff to another suit for such purpose. It is also proved that the respondent has resigned from the petitioner no. 1 company in the year 2003. As the respondent is no more in the employment of petitioner no. 1, therefore, he is liable to be evicted of the suit premises u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act. The petitioners have also proved that petitioner no. 1 requires the suit premises for the use of its employees, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for an eviction order u/s 22 of DRC Act.
22. Accordingly, both the eviction petitions u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act as well //32// as u/s 22 of DRC Act are allowed and eviction orders are passed u/s 14 (1) (i) of DRC Act as well as u/s 22 of DRC Act in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the suit premises i.e one room at first floor and side adjacent room with three partition portion encroached by the respondent, as shown in red and green colors respectively in the site plan Ex. PW2/2 forming part of property No. 19, Radha Madhav Mandir, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.