Delhi High Court
National Distributor Company vs Sant Lal Godha & Sons Charity Trust on 13 January, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 13.01.2012
+ R.C.R. 15/2012 & CM Nos. 692-693/2012 & Cav. No.
15/2012
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTOR COMPANY ........... Petitioner.
Through: Mr. Abhisehek Kumar, Adv.
Versus
SANT LAL GODHA & SONS CHARITY TRUST ..........Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated
21.09.2011 vide which the application filed by the tenant in a
pending eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the „DRCA‟) had been
dismissed.
2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been
filed by the landlord which was a trust M/s Santlal Godha & Sons
Charity Trust through its three trustees under Section 14 (1)(e) of
the DRCA. The grounds of eviction as contained in para 18-A
reads herein as under:-
"That the petitioner/Trust is the owner of suit property No.1318, BAIDWARA
STREET, DELHI-110006 which has been let out to the respondent for Godown
purpose. The same is required bonafide by the petitioner for themselves as well
as carrying on further activities of charitable trust as the same has been
founded by the predecessors of the trustees of the petitioner as the petitioner
has no other accommodation/suitable premises for carrying out such activities
of the trust because the accommodation already available with them is very
small and insufficient to meet the requirement of the petitioner and to carry on
the activities of the charitable trust. The suit premises is required by the
petitioner for their bonafide used to accommodate their saints, guests during
festivals as well as required to keep their accounts of the office as there is only
one room available with the petitioner which is shown green in the site plan
filed herewith, where otherwise precious worships articles of the temple like
CHHATAR, CHANDUA SIL etc. are lying which are required to perform PUJA
during festival of Diwali, Holi as well as in the festival of DASLAKHNI. Even the
old PUJARI of adjoining temple, she Shrichand living on the first floor isbeing
accommodated to live in a portion of the said room shown green in the site plan
because of his old age between 70-75 years as he is not in position to climb up
stair who is other suffering from Cancer."
3. The trust deed filed along with the eviction petition has also
been perused including its object clause. This document clearly
evidences that this is a private trust of the family of Mr. Mahendra
Kumar Godha; three trustees through whom this eviction petition
has filed are all members of the family of Mahendra Kumar
Godha.
4. The only contention which has been urged before this Court
today is that the provisions of Section 22 of the DRCA is
applicable and this being a special provision for recovery of
possession in certain cases which include recovery of possession
of properties by a public institution or a charitable trust which is
so in this case; the provision of Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA
could not have been adhered to.
5. The trust deed and object clause contained therein clearly
show that this is a private trust and this deed is thus outside the
purview of Section 22 and this has been rightly noted by the trial
court in the impugned order. The explanation of Section 22 is
relevant; a private trust is outside the purview of Section 22.
Unless and until a fact finding by a court below is perverse, the
powers of this Court to interfere in review or a reasoned fact
finding are curtailed. The document i.e. trust deed had been
correctly construed by the trial Court and held to be a private
trust; provisions of Section 22 of the DRCA are clearly
inapplicable.
6. The eviction petition had also averred that their pujari who
is cancer patient is living on the first floor and the present
accommodation with the tenant which is on the ground floor is
required bonafide by him as he is unable to climb stairs. There is
no dispute to this factual submission.
7. As noted supra, the only argument urged today is on the
applicability of Section 22 of the DRCA and the ouster of the
provision under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the
DRCA on this score. The impugned order holding that the
provisions of Section 22 are inapplicable suffers from no infirmity.
The application for leave to defend had mentioned other alleged
triable issues but the learned counsel for the petitioner has
restricted his argument only on the applicability of Section 22 and
this submission having no merit is rejected.
8. The impugned order decreeing the eviction petition filed by
the landlord thus suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any
merit.
9. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JANUARY 13, 2012
A
