Delhi High Court
Dil Bahadur vs Arya Samaj Mandir on 26 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 26.10.2018
+ C.R.P. No.225/2018
DIL BAHADUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate.
versus
ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ...Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.42630/2018 (for delay)
For the reasons explained in the application, the delay in filing
the present petition is hereby condoned. The application is disposed
of accordingly.
C.R.P. No.225/2018 & C.M. No.42628/2018 (for stay)
1. The impugned order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned
Civil Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in
Civil Suit No.51103/2016 is the subject-matter of challenge in
the present Civil Revision Petition. By order dated 19.4.2018,
the application of the petitioner/defendant to review the order
dated 26.7.2017 under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed. In
this application, the respondent/plaintiff sought a direction to
the petitioner/defendant to pay or deposit in the court a sum of
Rs.30,000/- per month or such other sufficient amount as is
considered appropriate.
2. The respondent/plaintiff-Arya Samaj, Greater Kailash-II and
Greater Kailash Enclave-II through its President Sh. Priya Vrat
has preferred a suit for mandatory injunction directing the
petitioner/defendant to vacate its premises known as Arya
Samaj Mandir, Road No.1, M-Block, Greater Kailash Part-II,
New Delhi-110048 consisting of two rooms, one kitchen and a
common latrine and bathroom, used by the petitioner/defendant
as his residence and shown with red colour in the site plan
annexed with the plaint. The respondent/plaintiff also prayed
for a direction to the petitioner/defendant to remove all his
goods and handover the possession of the said premises and to
recover damages as well as water and electricity charges.
3. It is pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff in para No.1 of the
plaint that it is a registered society and Sh. Priya Vrat is its
President, who being conversant with the facts of the case, is
authorized to sign, verify and file the plaint. The
respondent/plaintiff pleaded in para No.2 of the plaint that the
petitioner/defendant had been working as a Sevadar for the last
about 35 years and on account of his working as a Sevadar, he
was allowed to use the said property as his residence. In para
No.3 of the plaint, it is pleaded that the services of all the
employees/Sevadars including the petitioner/defendant shall
come to an end on attaining the age of 65 years. By
communication dated 9.6.2015, the respondent/plaintiff
informed the petitioner/defendant that he would retire as
Sevadar on 1.1.2016 on attaining the age of 65 years.
4. In his written statement, the petitioner/defendant inter alia
pleaded that he has been working in Arya Samaj Mandir from
the date of its construction till date and has been issued a false
and fabricated order dated 9.6.2015 for his retirement. He
pleaded that the Arya Samaj Mandir was registered after 11
years of its construction and that he has been working as a
Sevadar since 11.7.1979. He pleaded that the
respondent/plaintiff has never given him salary and other
benefits under Minimum Wages Act. He pleaded that he has
been working as a Sevadar for his whole life in Arya Samaj
Mandir and residing with his children, and being a poor person,
he has no other accommodation to live except the suit premises.
5. The petitioner/defendant has not denied the contents of paras 1
& 2 of the plaint as mentioned hereinbefore in corresponding
para of his written statement which are deemed to have been
impliedly admitted. He has not disputed that the
respondent/plaintiff is a registered society and Sh.Priya Vrat, its
President being conversant with the facts of the case is
authorized to sign, verify and file the present suit. He has also
not denied the fact that the petitioner/defendant has been
working as a Sevadar with the respondent/plaintiff for the last
35 years and on account of his working as a Sevadar with the
respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant was allowed to use
two rooms, one kitchen and common latrine and bathroom as
his residence in the premises in question.
6. Order 39 Rule 10 CPC stands attracted where the subject-matter
of a suit is money or some other thing capable of delivery and
any party to the suit admits that he holds such money or other
thing as a trustee for another party, or that it belongs to or is due
to another party, the Court is empowered to direct the same to
be deposited in the court or deliver to such last-named party,
with or without security, subject to further directions. Section
151 CPC empowers the court to make such orders as may be
necessary for ends of justice to prevent the abuse of the process
of the court.
7. The petitioner/defendant has admitted that he has been working
as a Sevadar with the respondent/plaintiff-Arya Samaj Mandir.
As per Wikipedia, Sevadar is a Punjabi word for a volunteer
who offers his or her services to a Gurudwara or to the Sikh
community free of charge. It is a term used to refer to a person
who performs seva (work/service/assistance) of any kind
without looking for any physical or spiritual reward or payment
of any kind. A Sevadar helps purely because of his/her
dedication to Guru/God as part of his/her duty to the wider
community: People of every religion are also included in this
service.
8. In A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu
Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by
its President And Others; (2012) 6 SCC 430, the Apex Court
held "The watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look
after the property can never acquire interest in the property
irrespective of his long possession. The watchman, caretaker or
a servant is under an obligation to hand over the possession
forthwith on demand. According to the principles of justice,
equity and good conscience, the courts are not justified in
protecting the possession of a watchman, caretaker or servant
who was only allowed to live into the premises to look after the
same."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
petitioner/defendant has acquired a lifelong interest in the
property in question in view of his long possession since
11.07.1979. This contention is without merit and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further held in A. Shanmugam's case
(supra) "The watchman, caretaker or agent holds the property
of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no
right or interest whatsoever in such property irrespective of his
long stay or possession."
10. The petitioner/defendant has been enjoying the property in
question without payment of any charges which is not
permissible in law. The petitioner/defendant has been holding
the said property on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff which is
capable of delivery and therefore, the court is empowered to
direct the petitioner/defendant to deposit such money as it thinks
fit, particularly, to prevent the abuse of the process of the court
and meet the ends of justice.
11. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Civil Judge. The petition and the pending application is
accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs, being without
any merit.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 26, 2018
'AA'
