Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 22 of drc act in Shri Bhim Sen Batra vs M/S Shreyans Buildwell Pvt Ltd on 19 May, 2015Matching Fragments
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further stated that even if the leave to defend application of the Petitioner was not to be allowed and the averments in the eviction petition are to be taken on their face value the same do not attract provision of Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act and an eviction petition under Section 22 of the DRC Act only could have been filed. Section 14 (1) (e) and Section 22 of the DRC Act provide as:
14 (1)(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.
or
(c) that any other person is in unauthorised occupation of such premises; or
(d) that the premises are required bona fide by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities.
8. A perusal of the eviction petition as noted above would show that the premises was required for commercial purposes for the Respondent Company to extend its office where it can arrange for the sitting of the employees as it was going to recruit 40 more employees to expand its business and was not required for the residential purposes of the employees. The first three clauses of Section 22 of the DRC Act have no application to the facts of the present case. The Petitioner is not in service of the Respondent, nor it is alleged that the Petitioner has contravened the terms of occupancy of the premises nor is an unauthorized occupant. Even Clause (d) is not applicable as the Respondent is not a public institution. 'Public Institution' has been defined in the explanation to Section 22 which includes Educational Institutions, Library, Hospital and Charitable Dispensary but does not include any such institution set up by any private trust.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Madan Mohan Lal vs. P. Tandon, 21 (1982) DLT 16 wherein this Court held that if the company or a body corporate requires the premises for the use of its employees Section 22 DRC Act alone would apply and not Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. The said decision was rendered by this Court before the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead) by LRs vs. Union of India and another, 2008 (5) SCC 287 when Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act was applicable to the residential premises only and thus this Court held that if the premises was required for the residence of the employees then Section 22 of the DRC Act would be applicable. As noted from the contents of the eviction petition, the Respondent clearly stated that the tenanted premises was required to expand its business and for this reason it requires the premises for its own use and the use of its employees. The tenanted premises was required as a commercial premises and not as a residential premises for the employees. Even if the employees sit in the office, the same cannot be said that the premises are required for the use of the employees. There is no gainsaying that it is for the use of the company itself. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel in Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd.vs. Sitar Ram Goel, RC Rev. No.401/2012 decided on 14th August, 2012 is also not applicable because in the eviction petition therein the landlord had stated that he required the premises to fulfill the need of residential accommodation of the employees.