Delhi High Court
Anil Bole & Anr. vs Shri Banarsidas Chandiwala Sewa ... on 29 January, 2018
$~23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 29th January, 2018
+ RC.REV. 386/2016 & CM No. 28686/2016 (stay)
ANIL BOLE & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
SHRI BANARSIDAS CHANDIWALA SEWA SMARAK
TRUST SOCIETY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The respondent trust had instituted a case for eviction (E-
560/13) against the petitioners and two others in respect of premises
described as three rooms, tin shed, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and WC
on the first floor and two rooms, open terrace, one space and one store
in stairs on the second floor of flat No.1027/16/2, Paiwalan, Chawri
Bazar near Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006 as shown more elaborately in
the site plan in red colour annexed to the eviction petition, invoking
ground of bona fide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958. The petitioners, concededly tenants in the subject
premises, claiming to have been inducted in such capacity by late
Shyam Kishan, filed an application seeking leave to contest in terms
of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The rent
controller considered the said application but found no substance and,
therefore, by order dated 08.04.2016 declined the request and
consequently passed an order of eviction which is impugned by the
revision petition at hand.
2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone
through the record, this court finds no merit in the revision petition.
The reasons may be set out hereinafter.
3. It is not in dispute that Shyam Kishan was the erstwhile owner
of the subject property. The petitioners are also not in a position to
raise a dispute about the fact that the said Shyam Kishan by way of
Deed of Settlement dated 23.09.1982 had passed on the right, title and
interest of the subject property in favour of the respondent trust.
Noticeably, the petitioners in their leave to defend application
themselves described the subject property as a "trust property" while
no issue was sought to be agitated about the title of the respondent
trust qua the subject property, it was only the authorization of the
secretary to institute the eviction case which was raised as a ground.
The learned rent controller has found no deficiency in this regard nor
any such deficiency has been shown or demonstrated before this court
and, therefore, the said ground calls for no trial.
4. It is not disputed - rather it is properly demonstrated by
requisite material on record - that the respondent trust runs medical
facilities providing services to the society at large. The trust runs a
number of dispensaries, hospital, welfare centre, clinics, etc., the
constituency catered to being poor sections of society. This is borne
out from the memorandum of association, copy of which was shown
and to the genuineness of which there is no contest. The plea that the
claim is sham, bogus or a façade is just in the air with nothing placed
on record to substantiate.
5. The petitioners raised the plea before the rent controller that the
trust owns and is in possession of a number of properties in various
portions in which different tenants have been accommodated for
residential or commercial purposes. Even if the court presumes this to
be a fact, it does not assist the petitioners in any manner for resisting
the case for eviction on the ground of bona fide need, in absence of
contention that another tenant was inducted in a vacant portion during
the period immediately before the filing of the petition for eviction.
6. The plea that the purpose of expansion of charitable hospital
facilities, which is the ground on which eviction is sought, can be
served by utilizing spaces available in the building is as vague as it
could be. The petitioners were unable to point out any vacant space.
7. The arguments raised that the locality where the premises is
situate is congested and suffers from noise pollution on which account
no patient would get effective treatment is wholly devoid of substance.
Medical facilities, particularly by charitable institutions, in congested
areas, only augment and complement the medical services provided by
the State or municipal agencies. A congested area does not mean the
local inhabitants must go out to far flung areas for such purposes.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order is
found not to be suffering from any error or infirmity. The learned rent
controller has appreciated the facts and circumstances in proper
perspective and has taken a correct view which calls for no
interference.
9. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 29, 2018
vk
