CM(M) 626/2022

Page 1 of 18

$~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. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

1.

This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

assails judgment dated 15

J U D G M E N T (O R A L)

%

07.07.2022

th 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 30^th

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:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002535

CM(M) 626/2022

Page 2 of 18

“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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002535

CM(M) 626/2022

Page 3 of 18

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 24^t