Delhi High Court
Shri Rishi Walia vs Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust ... on 7 July, 2022
$~57(Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (M) 626/2022 & CM No. 29553/2022, CM No. 29554/2022
SHRI RISHI WALIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Madan Lal Sharma and Ms.
Rejaswini Verma, Advs.
versus
SHRI SANATAN DHARAM MANDIR TRUST REGD
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON' BLE MR. J USTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (O R A L)
% 07.07.2022
1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
assails judgment dated 15th December, 2021 passed by the learned
Principal District & Sessions Judge (the learned Pr DSJ) in RCT
52/16, whereby the learned Pr DSJ has dismissed the appeal filed by
the petitioner, assailing order and judgment dated 30th September,
2013 of the learned Additional Rent Controller (the learned ARC) in
Eviction Petition E. No. 72/2011.
2. Eviction Petition E. No. 72/2011 was filed by Shri Sanatan
Dharam Mandir Trust (the respondent herein and referred to,
hereinafter as the "SDM Trust") under Section 22 of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, seeking eviction of the petitioner from Shop No.
34, measuring 8X16 feet situated at the ground floor on the Mangal
Bazar Road side. Section 22 of the DRC Act reads thus:
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
"22. Special provision for recovery of possession in
certain cases. - Where the landlord in respect of any
premises is any company or other body corporate or any
local authority or any public institution and the premises
are required for the use of employees of such landlord or
in the case of a public institution, for the furtherance of
its activities, then, notwithstanding anything contained in
section 14 or any other law, the Controller may, on an
application made to him in this behalf by such landlord,
place the landlord in vacant possession of such premises
by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be
in occupation thereof, if the Controller is satisfied
(a) that the tenant to whom such premises were
let for use as a residence at a time when he was in
the service or employment of the landlord, has
ceased to be in such service or employment; or
(b) that the tenant has acted in contravention of
the terms, express or implied, under which he was
authorised to occupy such premises; 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.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "public
institution" includes any educational institution, library,
hospital and charitable dispensary [but does not include
any such institution set up by any private trust]."
3. The case set up by the SDM Trust, in its eviction petition, was
that it was running and managing the Sanatan Dharam Mandir which
contained a hall named Geeta Bhawan, to access which persons were
required to cross the entire stretch of the mandir area from the
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
complex. In order to facilitate ingress and egress of devotees to the
temple, the respondent submitted that it desired to acquire Shop No.
34, which was owned by it and in which the petitioner was a tenant.
The plaint also explains how, through the said shop, it would be
possible for pilgrims and devotees to have access to Geeta Bhawan
without having to cross the entire temple area.
4. The petitioner, in his written statement filed in response to the
eviction petition, contested the ownership of the aforesaid temple by
the respondent-Trust. It was sought to be averred that the respondent-
Trust was neither the landlord of the premises nor was it a public
institution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention
to the rent deed dated 24th October, 1997, whereunder, according to
the respondent-Trust, the shop had been let out on rent to the
petitioner. He has sought to point out that the rent deed was with the
"President, Sanatan Dharam" and not with the respondent-Trust.
5. This, essentially, is the main contention advanced before me in
the present proceedings by learned Counsel for the petitioner. His
contention is that the respondent-Trust was neither the owner nor was
managing the temple, which formed the foundation of the cause of
action for moving the eviction petition. He submits that, in fact, the
temple was constructed in 1960, much before the respondent-Trust
even came into existence and was, in fact, owned and managed by an
entirely different entity named Sanatan Dharam Sabha. He submits
that both the courts below have seriously erred in failing to note the
distinction between the Sanatan Dharam Sabha and the respondent-
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
Trust. According to learned Counsel, the respondent-Trust had no
locus standi whatsoever, insofar as the Sanatan Dharam Mandir was
concerned, which was entirely owned and managed by the Sanatan
Dharam Sabha.
6. He also disputes the ownership, by the respondent-Trust, of
Shop No. 34, which is in his occupation as a tenant. He points out that
the rent agreement was between the president, Sanatan Dharam and
not with the Sanatan Dharam Trust. He submits that, in fact, the
respondent-Trust has initiated these proceedings malafide, with no
locus standi whatsoever to maintain them under Section 22 of the
DRC Act.
7. To one extent or another, these arguments were also advanced
before the learned RCT. Paras 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 of the
impugned judgment of the learned RCT may, in this context, be
usefully reproduced thus:
"16. In view of the aforesaid legal parameters for
succeeding in a petition for eviction, reverting back to the
instant case, the Ld. ARC has rightly referred to paragraph 18
(a) of the Eviction petition at page No.7, wherein it was
averred by the petitioner society/trust as under:-
"The petitioner is covered under Public Institution. It is
running a school, namely Shri Sanatan Dharam Bal
Vidhaylaya wherein petitioner provide free education
to about 20 students and petitioner's management also
used to provide dresses, books etc. The said school is
also having library and petitioner is assisting to the
poor people of society by solemnizing their marriages
and by assisting them socially, morally and assisting to
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
some extent financially also. Petitioner arrange health
camps like Eyes, Polio, Blood ·Sugar and cardiac
check-up etc. petitioner's Governing Body is
registered. with registrar of societies and have a
Memorandum of Association and Ru.les and
regulations. The object of the petitioner are mentioned
therein and a copy thereof is annexed herewith."
17. Now, the respondent in the written statement in
response to the said paragraph stated that "in the absence of
existence of relationship of landlord· and tenant between the
parties, paragraph 18(a) needed no reply'. This Tribunal has
no hesitation in mind that the Ld. ARC rightly held that there
is no specific denial by the respondent with regard to the
sphere of activities of the petitioner Society / Trust and
reliance was rightly placed on decision in Asha Kapoor v.
Hari Om Sharda. · (supra) that absence of specific denial by
the defendant/respondent in the written statement, would
amount to admission of the averments/pleadings of the
plaintiff/petitioner. Anyhow, since it is the duty of the Court/
Tribunal to decipher the pleadings and appreciate the
evidence independently and not render a judgment on mere
technical parameters, it is pertinent to mention that admittedly
the petitioner is not a Trust but a Society registered with the
Registrar of Societies. Thus, whether or not such registered
Society is a public institution within the meaning of Section
22 of the DRC Act has been answered in the case of Bid hi
Chand Jain Charitable Trust vs. Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal
(supra), providing as under:-
"A trust is primarily a legal concept, a mode of transfer
of property and of holding property. On the other hand,
an institution is primarily a social concept; It is not a
legal concept at all. For, there is no established legal
method by which an institution may come into being. It
may be established by way of an organisation which
may assume any or no legal form. It may be a trust or
a company or a statutory corporation or a mere
unincorporated association or a society registered or
otherwise. It is its work and place in the society that is
the hall-mark of an institution. As observed by Lord
Macnaghten in Mayor etc. of Manchester v. Me Adam,
3 Tax Cases 491 at 497, "it in the body (so to speak)
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
called into existence to translate the purpose as
conceived in the mind of the founders into a living and
active principle."
*****
20. There is no merit in the plea that the petitioner society
was initially registered on some other address far away from
the place of its activities as there is no legal requirement that a
registered office as also the place of doing public services
should be the same. It is further in the testimony of PW-1 D.P.
Sharma that shop in question was let out to the respondent in
the year March-1986, which was not controverted, and that
thereafter a formal rent agreement dated 29.04.1997 was
executed Ex.PW-1/9, which was witnessed by him bearing his
signatures at point 'X' and the testimony of PW-1 is again
unimpeached that at the relevant time he was Secretary of the
petitioner Society/Trust. While, the Ld. Counsel for the
appellant kept on unabashedly denying that petitioner
Society/Trust is not the owner or landlord of the tenancy
premises in question, the appellant patently fails making any
iota of averment as to how the appellant came to acquire the
possession of the tenancy premises and/or from whom? The
appellant has not chosen to come in the witness box and
surprisingly he rather summoned his arch rival RW-2 Yashpal
Bali who reiterated that he was legal owner of the property in
question and was President of the Society in the years 1996,
1997 and 1998 when the rent deed Ex.PW-1/9 was executed
on 24.10.1997. Mere bald denial of the execution of Ute rent
deed and claiming it to be forged and fabricated carry no
weight and the defence of the appellant manifestly appears to
be without any substance.
21. The sum result of the aforesaid discussion is that the
petitioner Society/Trust is able to prove that it is public
institution carrying out religious, social, educational and
charitable activities in the interest of the society and is very
much a 'public institution' within the four corners of Section
22 of the DRC Act. As regards the relationship of landlord
and tenant between the parties, the objection raised by the Ld.
Counsel for the appellant are also bereft any merit. At the cost
of repetition, rent agreement dated 24.10.1997 Ex.PW-1/9 has
been validly proved on the record. The appellant is failing to
show as to how and under whom he became tenant or
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
acquired possession of the tenancy shop. It is pertinent to
mention here that PW-1 D.P. Sharma in his affidavit in
evidence Ex.P-1 vide paragraph (7) deposed as under:
"I say that respondent earlier filed a petition U/s 27 of
the D.R.C. Act in my name and in the name of Yash
Pal Bali, President of Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir
wherein some another persons were also shown party
and it was pleaded by the respondent that they are also
claiming rent. But vide order dated 13.02.2004 Shri
Atul Kumar Garg. then Addl. Rent·. Controller Delhi,
was pleased to direct the respondent to pay rent to Shri
Sanatari Dharam
Mandir, through our official capacity only and we were
allowed to withdraw the rent from the court. A
photostat copy of that order is also filed on record
which is marked 'A'.
22. Suffice to state that in the entire cross-examination of
PW-1, the said position ·was not challenged. In other words,
there was no challenge that rent was indeed deposited under
Section 27 of the DRC Act by the appellant and the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Yaspal Bali and D.P. Sharma
being President and Secretary respectively of the petitioner
Society/Trust were allowed to withdraw the rent so deposited,
substantiated by the copy of order dated 13.02.2004 passed by
Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, the then Ld. ARC in DR No. 341/02.
Although certified copy of the said order was not proved on
record, at the cost of repetition the testimony of PW-1 was not
challenged and the appellant has not chosen to come in the
witness box to account -for the deposit of rent in such a
manner by him, wherein he inter alia admitted that petitioner
Society / Trust was landlord qua him. Thus, the findings
recorded by the Ld. ARC in the impugned judgment dated
30.09.2013 on the issue of existence of relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be challenged.
23. Coming to the crucial aspect of Section 22 of the DRC
Act as to whether the tenancy premises is required bonafidely
by the petitioner for opening a door to have access to Geeta
Bhawan, Ld.ARC observed as under:-
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
11.1 The petitioner society has alleged4 that there is
a big hall in the Mandir premises on Mangal Bazar
Road side which is called Geeta Bhawan and which is
a place used for the purposes of Kirya Chautha/Uthala
and prayer meetings. That people reach the aforesaid
Geeta Bhawan from main gate or from other side by
crossing whole of the Mandir. That main gate is meant
for egress-ingress of the devotees and the other side
gate is at a long distance, which is not proper for a
person who is coming for attending Shok Sabha as he
has to cross the whole of Mandir to reach Gaeta
Bhawan. Thus, management wants that people should
come directly in the Geeta Bhawan from a new gate
which is required to be made/opened from the place of
Shop No. 34. That this Geeta Bhawan. is in the
triangular shape (shown in site plan filed by petitioner)
and due to shop no. 29 to 40 on Mangal Bazar side
Road, there is no ventilation or any window on this
side. due to non-ventilation or any windows people
used to feel suffocation at the time of pagri
rasrn!Kirya/Utha/a and ·prayer used to pass in uneasy
manner and there is no emergency gate for exit except
main gate no. 3 and due ·to non-availability of nearby
door or any emergency gate to Geeta Bhawan there are
apprehensions of · mis-happening for the gathering
which assemble in the Geeta Bhawan during the
aforesaid occasions. That tenanted premises is most
suitable place as compared to other shops because it is
situated in the center of the wall of Geeta Bhawan
hence the tenanted premises is required bonafidely by
the petitioner for opening a gate in the hall of Geeta
Bhawan.
11.2 In reply to this para on merits in the written
statement the respondent has merely stated as under:-
"18(a) That in absence of landlord-tenant
relation between the petitioner and the
respondent, paw 18(b) of the petition need no
reply"
11.3 Thus, there is no specific denial by the
respondent as regards the requirement of the petitioner
and that the petitioner requires the premises for
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
opening a gate of Gaeta Bhwan towards Mangal Bazar
side, as per the rules of pleadings and as per the
judgment titled Asha Kapoor Vs Had Om Sllardas5.
Thus, it stands admitted by the respondent that the
petitioner requires the tenanted premises for its
bonafide requirement for the furtherance of its
activities.
11.4 It may be noted that even in the written
arguments the alleged requirement of the petitioner has
not been challenged by the respondent.
11.5 Moreover, a perusal of the site plan Ex.PW1/C
reveals the reason behind the requirement. The site
plan clearly shows that Geeta Bhawan has no gate
towards Mangal Bazar and that it can. be reached only
after entering the premises of the Mandir form Gate
No.3. which is nearest to the said Bhawan. The
tenanted shop is in the middle of Gaeta Bhawan
towards Mangal Bazar side and as such fit for opening
a new gate of Gaeta Bhawan for the convenience of
public persons who visit the said Bhawan for one
reason or the other.
11.6 Coming to the oral testimony of the sole
petitioner witness PW-1, it is found that the said
witness in his affidavit in Para 4 on page 3 has deposed
as regards the aforesaid requirement of the petitioner
society. However, despite lengthy cross examination of
this witness no suggestion has been given to him that
the alleged requirement of the petitioner is not
bonafide and he has not been questioned at all as
regards the alleged requirement.
11.7 Thus, the court is satisfied that the tenanted
premises is required by petitioner society for
furtherance of its activities and for the convenience of
the public at large who visit the mandir and Gaeta
Bhawan.
24. Without further ado, the aforesaid findings recorded by
the Ld. ARC are also not open to challenge on any grounds
whatsoever. PW-1 in his detailed affidavit in evidence Ex.P-1
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
vide paragraph (6) and (8) reiterated such averments on oath.
A bare reading of the cross examination of PW-1 would show
that the said aspects were not controverted in any manner.
There was no challenge to the correctness of the site plan
Ex.PW·1/1. A bare perusal of the site plan Ex.PW·1/1 would
show that entire complex is in triangular shape and it has 41
shops having opening towards Sanatan Dharma. Mandir
Market, Mangal Bazar Road. Then, there is shop no. 42
opening on two sides i.e., towards mangal bazar and then
having an opening along with shops No. 43 to 67 towards the
side of Sanatan Dharam Mandir Marg and there are shops No.
A-1 to 70 on the third perpendicular side viz. Sanatan Dharam
Mandir- Market Lane. The structure of Geeta Bhawan is
shown on the extreme left along with the front shop NO. 29 to
41 and then corner triangular shop No. 42 on the side of
Sanatan Dharam Mandir Market, Mangal Bazar Road and the
tenancy shop in question viz. No. 34 shown in red is
strategically placed in the middle of Geeta Bhawan. The site
plan Ex. PW-1/1 further depicts that Gate No.3 is located at
some· considerable distance between shop No. 27 and 29
whereas there is another small gate, which opens far away on
the side of Sana tan. Dharam Mandir Marg.
25. Now, it is no way the case of the appellant that his
shop is not suitable to provide access to the structure indicated
as Geeta Bhawan. The testimony of PW-1 is uncontroverted
and unrebutted that the devotees face problem in having
access to the Geeta Bhawan coming all the way from gate
No.3 and passing through entire length
and breadth of the temple for converging on various public
functions. In any case, it is for the petitioner Society/Trust to
spell out as what is best for the user and enjoyment of the
property in public interest and the appellant cannot dictate any
terms to the petitioner on this score. In view of the foregoing
discussion, I find that the present appeal is devoid of any
merits. The appellant has been making all kind of sham and
bogus defences to keep occupying the tenancy premises to the
detriment of interest of the public at large and the devotees
who throng
the 'Temple Complex'."
8. During the course of the proceedings before the learned ARC,
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
the evidence of Mr. Dharam Pal Sharma was recorded as PW-1,
deposing for the respondent-Trust. PW-1 specifically stated, in his
affidavit by way of evidence, thus:
"2. I say that Respondent Rishi Walia is our tenant in shop
no.34 in shops of Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir, H-Block,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59. The shop is measuring 8 x 16'
situated on ground floor on Mangal Bazar Road side and is
shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint.
Site plan of the suit shop is on record which is Ex.PW1/2.
Shop is at monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month and
Respondent is tenant since March, 1986.
3. I say that Managing Committee of Shri Sanatan
Dharam Mandir, H-Block, is seeking eviction of Respondent
Rishi Walia from the shop in question on the ground that Shri
Sanatan Dharam Mandir is biggest temple in the area and
valuable and beautiful statutes of almost all Gods and
Goddesses are lying installed in the Mandir and uncounted
devotees used to visit our Mandir premises almost daily in
morning and evening time. But during the main festivals
uncounted persons in strength of several lakhs used to visit
Psetitioner Mandir for prayer and Darshan. The main
festivals are Sri Krishna Janamasthmi, Shiv Ratri, Navratras,
Ramlila and Dussehera and a flood of devotees used to visit
for Darshan in the Mandir and those programmes are used to
display on the local cannels of the cable network.
4. I say that a big hall in the Mandir premises on Mangal
Bazar Road side is called Geeta Bhawan and this place is
being used for the purpose of Kirya/ Chautha/Uthala and
prayer meetings. People used to reach in the aforesaid Geeta
Bhawan either from main gate or from other side by crossing
whole of the Mandir. Though main gate is meant for outgress
ingress of the devotees and other side gate is at long distance
on other side and it is not proper that a person who is coming
for attending Shok Sabha used to cross to the whole of
Mandir. Management want that people should come directly
in the Geeta Bhawan from a new gate which is required to be
meant from the place of shop no.34. This place Geeta
Bhawan is in triangle shape, as shown in the site plan, and due
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
to shops no. 29 to 40 on Mangal Bazar side Road, there is no
ventilation or any window on this side and due to non-
ventilation and windows people used to feel suffocation and
time of around two hours of Pagri Rasm/Kirya/Uthala and
Prayer used to pass in uneasy manner and there is no
emergency gate for exit except main gate no.3 and due to non-
availability of nearby door or any emergency gate to Geeta
Bhawan there may be some apprehension of any mis-
happening for the gathering which assemble in the Geeta
Bhawan during the aforesaid occasions.
5. I say that some bridegroom with Barat party used to
enter for the Darshans in Mandir but at the same time Shok
Sabhas of Kirya/Uthala disperses and comes out from the
same gate but such scene seems very unpleasant and improper
and general public of the area are continuously oral requests
to the Management to arrange a separate entrance gate for
Geeta Bhawan. The Kirya gatherings take places approx. 10
times in a month. The copy of the application received from
the public is filed on record which is Ex.PW1/2. Six counter-
foils of receiving rent from Respondent are also on record
which are also Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/8. Rent Agreement with
rishi Walia is Ex.PW1/9 and 17 (Seventeen). Application of
Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir by public for providing space in
Geeta Bhawan, are on record which are respectively exhibited
Ex.PW1/10 to Ex.PW1/26."
9. PW-1 also included, in his affidavit in evidence, further
assertions to support the stand, of the respondent, that acquiring of
Shop No. 34 was necessary to ensure easy access, by devotees and
pilgrims, to the premises of the temple. However, as learned Counsels
has not controverted this aspect of the matter before me, it is not
necessary to refer to the said assertions.
10. Apropos the aspect of ownership and management of the
Sanatan Dharam Mandir by the respondent-Trust, and the controversy
regarding the Sanatan Dharam Sabha vis-à-vis the Sanatan Dharam
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
Trust, is concerned, specific questions in this regard were put, by the
petitioner, to PW-1 during cross examination on the aforesaid affidavit
in evidence tendered by him, during the proceedings before the
learned ARC. It is worthwhile to reproduce, in extenso, the record of
the cross examination thus:
"PW-1
Dharam Pal Sharma s/o late Sh C. L. Sharma, aged
about 62 years, R/o H-18, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-59. (Recalled for cross-examination).
ON S.A
.
XXXXXX by counsel Sh. Manjeet Singh for respondent.
The owner of the Shop bearing no. 34, Block-H, Uttam
Nagar is Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust (Registered). We
have filed the documents on record which show that Sanatan
Dharma Mandir Trust is the owner of the suit shop. Again
said we have not filed any ownership documents on record.
(Vol. At the time of carving of this colony the original owner
who sold out the plot earmarked for selling and certain
portion was left out for park, streets, school, Mandir,
Gurudwara and other civil amenities, the residents made
mandir over the plot earmarked for Mandir and the shops
were also constructed surrounding the Mandir and out of these
shops one shop was rented out to the respondent). Sanatan
Dharam Mandir and Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust is the
same. It is correct that Sanatan Dharam Mandir is a temple
while Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust is a society registered
under the Societies Registraiton Act. Sanatan Dharam Mandir
is being run by the Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust.
I can not tell the name of the person who had initially
sold the property and earmarked the plots for Mandir,
Gurudwara etc. The construction of the Sanatan Dharam
Mandir had stated in the year 1960. (Vol. The construction is
still going on). The shop in question was let out to respondent
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
in March, 1986. Sanatan Dharam Mandir was the landlord of
the shop at the time of its letting out. The rent agreement
Ex.PW1/9 was executed on 24.10.1997. (Vol. The shops
were constructed one by one and were being let out as and
when these were constructed. Initially the written rent
agreement was not executed for letting out the shops but
subsequently the society decided to execute written agreement
for letting out shops). It is incorrect to suggest that the rent
agreement Ex.PW1/9 is not in favour of Sanatan Dharam
Mandir Trust.
I am General Secretary of Sanatan Dharam Mandir
Trust. I was member of Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust at the
time of execution of rent agreement Ex.PW1/9. It is incorrect
to suggest that Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust does not have
any concern with the Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust does not
have any concern with the Sanatan Dharam Mandir as well as
the shops surrounding the temple. The originals of Ex.PW1/3
to Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/27 are in my possession. I have
not brought the same today.
XXX deferred as the witness is directed to produce the
original of Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/28.
It is incorrect to suggest that the Resolution
Ex.PW1/29 is forged and fabricated. It is incorrect to suggest
that the petitioner has not passed any resolution from
19.099.2004 to 31.01.2006. Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/8 do not
bear the signatures of respondent. Earlier the petitioner Trust
was Sanatan Dharam Sabha. I have documentary proof of
Shree Sanatan Dharam Mandir for registration of Shree
Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir no. S/3704, copy of which
isEx.PW1/R1 (original seen and returned). (Vol. Sanatan
Dharam Mandir Trust has succeeded to Shree Sanatan
Dharam Sabha Mandir in December, 1993). The Shree
Sanatan Dharam Sabha was converted into Shree Sanatan
Dharam Trust for the furtherance of development of Shree
Sanatan Dharam Mandir and for adding lifetime members.
Here from Shree Sanatan Dharam Mandir I mean to say the
temple only. Again said - I mean to say temple as well as its
entire connected properties. We have only one document
Ex.PW1/R-2 to show that all the rights and properties of
Shree Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir were transferred to
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
petitioner Trust. It is incorrect to suggest that there is no
mention of any transfer of rights and properties in favour of
the petitioner Trust in Ex.PW1/R-2.
The temple shown at point A in the site plan
Ex.PW1/A was got constructed by the General Public and
members of the Sabha. The Hanuman Temple at point B in
the site plan Ex.PW1/A was constructed in the year 1968
approximately.
Mr.K.L. Kohli was General Secretary of Shree Santan
Dharam Sabha Mandir as well as Shree Sanatan Dharam
Mandir Trust. I do not know if Mr.K.L. Kohli had submitted
any affidavit Mark B before the Registrar of Societies stating
therein that the society was not having any temple to
maintain.
The Rent Agreement Ex.PW1/9 was executed by Sh.
Yashpal Bali on behalf of the petitioner Trust in the capacity
of its President. I have signed the said Agreement at point X
as a witness. Mr. Yashpal Bali was the President off Shree
Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust in the year 1997. It is incorrect
to suggest that Mr. Yashpal Bali was not the President of
Shree Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust in the year 1996, 1997
and 1998. The certified copy of annual list of governing body
for the year 1996, 1997 and 1998 consisting of three pages
Mark C (Colly) is not the correct document as the same is
fabricated. It is wrong to suggest that Rent Agreement
Ex.PW1/9 is forged and fabricated. It is correct that the shop
no. 34 is in possession of the respondent. (Vol. He is in
possession in the capacity of tenant). Shree Sanatan Dharam
Mandir Trust is the owner of shop no.34. I have not filed any
ownership document of the said shop. No ownership
document was ever executed in respect to the said shop. (Vol.
The respondent had already admitted in the Court vide Mark
A that he is the tenant of the petitioner trust). It is incorrect to
suggest that there is no such admission in the document Mark
A. The registered address of the petitioner Trust at the time of
registration was B-33, 34, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi. It is correct that the petitioner Trust have
submitted application before the Registrar of Societies for the
change of address and the same is Ex.PW1/R-3. It is correct
that Registrar of Societies had sent the letter dated 04.10.1994
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
Ex.PW1/R-4 wherein they have asked for submission of NOC
from the owner of the premises. (Vol.The address of the
Trust was changed in the records of the Registrar of Societies
in the year 2007). It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing
falsely."
11. A reading of the aforesaid record of cross examination of PW-1
reveals that PW-1 has clearly stated, therein, inter alia , that (i) the
original registration certificate of Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust had
been produced by PW-1 and exhibited as Exh. PW 1/R2, (ii) Shri
Sanatan Dharam Sabha was converted into Shri Sanatan Dharam Trust
for the furtherance and development of Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir,
(iii) PW-1 also produced a document Exh. PW 1/R2 showing that the
rights and properties of Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir were transferred
to the respondent-Trust, (iv) Mr. K.L. Kohli was the general secretary
of Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir as well as Shri Sanatan Dharam
Mandir Trust, (v) the rent agreement dated 24th October, 1997 was
executed by Sh. Yashpal Bali on behalf of the respondent-Trust in his
capacity as president thereof, which position he was holding in the
year 1997, and (vi) Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust was the owner
of Shop No. 34.
12. In view of the aforesaid clarifications, which were elicited from
PW-1 during cross examination by the petitioner, the learned RCT has
upheld the decision of the learned ARC that the Sanatan Dharam
Mandir was in fact being run by Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust, and
that the petitioner was the tenant of the Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust
in respect of Shop No. 34.
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
13. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, does not re-appreciate evidence. There has been
wholesome appreciation of evidence both by the learned ARC as well
as the learned RCT. There are concurrent findings of fact regarding
the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the respondent-
Trust and the petitioner vis-à-vis Shop No.34 and the management of
the Sanatan Dharam Mandir by the respondent-Trust. If one peruses
Section 22 of the DRC Act, its ingredients are clear. The indicia
which are required to be established by a landlord in order to justify
eviction of a tenant under the said provision are that (i) the landlord is
a company or other body corporate or local authority or public
institution, (ii) the premises are required for use of the employees of
such landlord or in the case of a public institution, for furtherance of
its activities, and (iii) (insofar as the present case is concerned) that the
premises are required bonafide by the public institution for the
furtherance of its activities. Having appreciated the evidence which
has emerged before it, both the courts below have found these
ingredients to stand satisfied and therefore have directed eviction of
the petitioner from the Sanatan Dharam Mandir.
14. The parameters of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution are well delineated in the following passage
from Sadhana Lodh v. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1:
"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High
Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined
only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has
(2003) 3 SCC 524
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error
apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of
law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227
of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an
appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a
High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which
the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the
order or to correct errors of law in the decision."
15. In exercise of the aforesaid limited jurisdiction therefore, I am
of the opinion that no case exists for this Court to interfere with the
decision of the courts below.
16. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
J ULY 7, 2022/kr
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.07.2022
13:02:57
