Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
Khosla Medical Institute - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. - Respondents
RFA No. 11 of 2012 & CM Appl. No. 135 of 2012
Decided On : 01-12-2022
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Iti Sharma, Mr. Puneet Sharma.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel.
Point of Law: Being a constitutional court and conscience-keeper of democracy, this Court cannot lend a blind eye when ends of justice are being bulldozed in broad daylight.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 80, 92, 96 - Order XLI - Order 39 Rule 2A - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Section 53(B) - Medical Research Centre - Cancellation of Lease - Seeking permanent injunction - First Appeal - Instant Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed on behalf of appellant institution, seeking reliefs.
Finding of the Court :
It is travesty of justice that an institution contributing for noble cause being that of running a charitable hospital on a public land and providing for sound research and treatment facilities has been made to suffer rigors of cancellation of Lease Deed and vacation of property. Law that should be an instrument for ensuring welfare is being reduced to a tool of atrocity in instant case. Being a constitutional court and conscience-keeper of democracy, Court cannot lend a blind eye when ends of justice are being bulldozed in broad daylight - Institution is imparting state’s welfare functions and should otherwise be done by instrumentalities of state - Even in such a case, undue harassment being caused to appellant will lead to an anathema of rule of law - Court, in light of observations made above finds that instant case has sufficient merits to be allowed and therefore, in terms of following directions, instant appeal and reliefs sought there are allowed in terms.
Results : Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the appellant institution, seeking the following reliefs:-
“a. Set aside the order/judgment dated 14.11.2011 passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta District Judge-cum ASJ - Incharge (West)/ ARCT Delhi in suit no. 652A/2011 (Old Suit No. 2498/1995).
b. Allow the prayers as made in the suit before the Ld. trial court.
c. Pass such order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. A perusal of the record unravels the following facts that have culminated into the controversy which falls for consideration before this Court :
a. The appellant is a Society which is formed with an objective to establish, maintain, manage, control, and run a Medical Research Centre registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the year 1977. Two brothers J.C. Khosla and K.C. Khosla decided to set up the institute to establish, maintain, manage, control, and run Medical Research Centre in various systems of medicines to render medical aid/relief for the said purpose and to open establish, maintain, manage, and control Dispensaries, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Houses, Sanitarium and medical and first aid centre at different places.
b. A lease deed was registered between the appellant and the respondent, i.e. the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter “DDA”), for allotting two plots 8228 sq. yds. and 1452 sq. yds. at Shalimar Bagh, West Delhi on 31st December, 1996.
c. The appellant raised construction on the said land by raising funds from various sources and the structure of the hospital was completed and the occupancy certificate was granted. In the year 1993, the Ayurvedic system of medicines was proposed to be included in the services of the hospital and a new wing was thereafter opened in the appellant Institute in the name of “Maharishi Ayurveda Arogya Dham”.
d. During this period, the relationship between brothers J.C. Khosla and K.C. Khosla, who were running the appellant Society, started to strain and as contended before the Trial Court, J.C. Khosla initiated several cases against K.C. Khosla and the appellant Institute. Several complaints have been made including complaints dated 30th June 1994, 2nd November 1994, and 12th July 1995. A complaint was also filed before the Income Tax Authorities alleging that the appellant Institute had transferred the property to third parties by inducting them as new members in the Institute.
e. Thereafter, due to several complaints made against the appellant, the respondent no. 1 issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellant dated 11th January 1995, asking it to show cause as to why the Lease Deed should not be cancelled for violation of Clause II(5)(a) of the Lease Deed. An observation was made therein that the appellant was found to have transferred the plot and the building to another entity and thereby, had violated the terms of the Lease Deed.
f. The appellant replied to the Show Cause Notice on 17th January 1995, stating therein that no transfer or sale of property was made by the appellant of the premises in question. It was stated that the Directors of the Society decided that an Ayurvedic System of medicine should be introduced as a part of the appellant Institute to promote benefits to the patients. The said Ayurvedic wing was being run and managed by the appellant Institute and was not transferred to a third party.
g. Ultimately, a Notice dated 7th December 1995 was served upon the appellant by the respondent no. 2 stating that upon having found the reply to the Show Cause Notice unsatisfactory, the Lease Deed of the appellant was cancelled, and it was also directed to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession.
h. The appellant alongwith K.C. Khosla, its Chairman, and Kanwal Khosla, Senior Vice Chairman, approached the Court of District Judge and A
