Delhi High Court
Gurudwara Siri Guru Singh Sabha ... vs S. Dalvinder Singh & Dr. A.K.Gupta on 10 September, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC REV. NOS. 490 & 529 OF 2011
Date of Decision: 10.09.2012
GURUDWARA SIRI GURU SINGH SABHA (REGD.)
THROUGH SHRI AMARJEET SINGH ......PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Hitender Kapur, Adv.
Versus
S. DALVINDER SINGH & DR. A.K.GUPTA
...... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr.S.C.Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. Both these revision petitions, which are being disposed of by
this common order, are directed against the separate orders dated
14.09.2011 of Commercial Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller
(West), whereby the leave to defend applications filed by the
respondents in the eviction petitions being E-110/11 and E-115/11,
were allowed.
2. The petitioner is a religious public institution running
Gurudwara under the name of Gurudwara Siri Guru Singh Sabha, C-
Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner has some shops
within the Gurudwara premises. The respondent Dr.A.K.Gupta is a
tenant in respect of the shops No. 3 & 4, whereas respondent
S.Dalvinder Singh is a tenant in respect of shop No. 2. Their
eviction was sought by the petitioner on the ground of bona fide
requirement of the tenanted premises for the purpose of expansion
of laboratory for the general public. It was the petitioner's case that
the petitioner Sabha wanted to expand the laboratory existing to the
ground floor of the premises, for the convenience of the public,
particularly, the old and the infirm. It was averred that they have no
suitable space for the expansion of their dispensary as well as
laboratory.
3. The respondents filed the leave to defend applications, which
were allowed by the separate orders of the ARC dated 14.09.2011.
The petitioner has challenged those orders in the instant revision
petitions.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the
respondents. The respondents had primarily taken two grounds,
seeking leave to contest the eviction petition. Firstly, that the
petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was
not maintainable, the petitioner being a public institution and the
tenanted premises allegedly required for furtherance of their
activities. Secondly, that the petitioner was in possession of ample
accommodation on the ground floor of the premises, which could be
used for the expansion of dispensary and the laboratory. The
respondents have filed the detailed site plan to demonstrate that the
petitioner has sufficient space on the ground floor for carrying out
the expansion of medical activities.
5. The learned ARC has dealt with both these issues and
recorded a finding, and rightly so, that the petitioner being a
religious public institution, and seeking tenanted premises for
furtherance of its activities, it would be Section 22(d) of the DRC
Act, that would be attracted and not Section 14(1)(e) thereof.
Further, with regard to the accommodation that is available with the
petitioner also, he has rightly observed that the respondents have,
prima facie, established a triable issue disputing the requirement of
the petitioner for additional space for expansion of their dispensary
and laboratory and requiring tenanted premises for the same. No
other point was urged before me by the learned counsel for the
petitioner assailing the impugned order. I do not see any infirmity or
illegality therein. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012/akb
