Conveyance documents such as Agreement to Sell, Will, and Power of Attorney can divest ownership rights in the property, bestowing rights on the transferee beyond mere possession. The interpretation of the word 'owner' under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act means something more than a tenant.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India the grievance of the Petitioner, namely Smt. Reeta Sahney, is that she has been unfairly and illegally passed over for the allotment of residential accommodation in the campus of Gargi College (Respondent No. 2 ). It is her contention that she is the senior most in the teaching faculty of Gargi College, having been in the service of the College for almost 35 years. Her grievance is that she has been denied allotment on the specious ground that she owns residential property within a radius of ten kilometres from the College and stands disentitled under the college Scheme. Attention has been forcefully drawn on her behalf to a notice dated 7. 11. 1991 calling upon the members of the staff to furnish an affidavit stating that- "i or my spouse do not own a house or has acquired one and/or Power of Attorney arrangements within a radius of 10 Kms. from the College. " Mr. Varma Learned counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that the college cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate inasmuch as if an acquisition of property by means of a power of Attorney arrangement is considered sufficiently relevant for allotment of residential quarters, it perforce must logically follow that a person who has sold property by means of a similar arrangement, should not be considered as having been disqualified from the benefits of the Scheme. It is further emphasised on behalf of the Petitioner that chief Justice R. S. Narula (Retd.), whose legal acumen and eminence cannot be doubted, had pointedly distanced himself from the impugned decision of the Governing body: his dissent has been recorded in the minutes. This decision was taken after virtually holding an inquisition against the Petitioner. She had categorically stated that she was neither the owner of the house nor has acquired one under Power of Attorney arrangement within a radius of ten kilometres from the college. The recommendation of the House Allotment committee was accepted by the Governing Body at its 140th Meeting held on 23. 2. 2000. The relevant minutes of the Meeting are as follows:

"item 2. As desired by the GB, the principal requested Or. Reeta Sahney to submit the various documents for placing before the GB in connection with her application,for allotment of staff quarters. The GB accepted the recommendations of the House Allotment Committee as given under. Hon ble member Justice R. S. Narula gave his dissent. Recommendation of the House allotment Committee: after going through all the papers submitted by Dr. Reeta Sahney and those available with the College and after taking into consideration her statements before the gb on 15. 11. 1999, the Committee Is convinced that Dr. Reeta Sahney is not entitled for allotment of a flat in the College premises in view of her owning a flat No. C-16. Masjid moth-I and recommends that the vaoant flat may be allotted to the next eligible candidate. Dr. Prem Khullar.

( 2 ) MR. R. Krishnamoorthy, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent College has strongly argued that the present writ petition ought not to be entertained, firstly for the reason that the College is not amenable to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Executive committee of Vaish Degree College. Shamli and others V. Lakshmi Narain and Others. AIR 1976 Supreme Court 888. An identical objection was also raised before me on behalf of the Centre for Policy Research in CWP 5928/2000, and Indian Council for Social Science research in CWP 4465/2001. While disposing of these petitions, this objection was rejected by me as I had found a Restatement of the law contained in U. P. State co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra bhan Dubey and Others. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 753. The relevant portions of this erudite, and perspicuous judgment are as under:

"the language of Article 226 does not admit of any limitation on the powers of hig