A public institution may seek eviction under Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act if it demonstrates a bona fide need for the premises for its activities.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

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:

"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 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 entir