JUDGMENT

KHALID, J. :— The common question that arises for decision in these appeals by special leave and the special leave petitions against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court is the scope of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (The Act for short). An application for eviction was filed by the respondent - the University of Delhi against its tenants, the appellants and the petitioners, under S. 22 of the Act seeking eviction on the ground that the buildings in their occupation were required for the use of its employees. Notices terminating their tenancies were served on them. Those applications were resisted by the tenants on various grounds. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, The Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, and the High Court concurrently found in favour of the Delhi University and held that the bona fide need urged was well founded and hence ordered eviction.

2. The building in question known as Manmohan building, Yusuf Sarai; belonged to the late Shri Manmohan Kishan Kaul. He had bequeathed it by his will dated 18-1-1963 to the Delhi University. The University obtained probate of the will from the High Court The Executive Council of the University decided to institute eviction proceedings against the tenants for the use of its employees.

3. The contention of the tenants in the eviction proceedings was that the ground urged was outside the objects mentioned in the will and as such the applications were not maintainable. This plea was repelled by all the authorities. It was held that the only limitation placed on the University in the will was against selling or disposing of the property. The tenants put forward another objection, in that the buildings were non-residential and as such the petition seeking eviction of -the building for the purpose of the residence of its employees was not maintainable. This was also repelled. In fact, the Tribunal observed that it was not disputed before it that the building as such was residential in nature, though some portion of the building had been used for commercial purposes. These concurrent findings are not, therefore, open to attack now.

4. The only question that survives for consideration now is as to whether the Delhi University was entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 22 of the Act to evict its tenants. For a proper appreciation of this contention, it is necessary to read Section 22 of the Act in full:

"22. 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 ate 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 .nay, on an application made to him in this behalf by such landlord place the landlord in A 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."

The Rent Control Authorities and the High Court found that the applications came squarely within Section 22. The contention, therefore, does not admit of any detailed discussion at our hands. Even so, we will briefly examine the section and answer the contention on the interpretation of the section. That