CM(M) 864/2022

Page 1 of 7

$~66(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M)

864/2022

&

CM

APPL.37131/2022,

CM

APPL.37132/2022

OM PRAKASH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Ms. Lata

Ublia, Is.Ishu Manakriya, Ms.Richa Narang

Malik and Mr.Pratap Singh, Advs.

versus

THE DELHI PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY (REGO.)

..... Respondent

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

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

%

26.08.2022

1.

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

assails order dated 5^th July 2022, passed by the learned Principal

District & Sessions Judge (the learned Pr. DSJ) in RCT 77/2018 (Om

Prakash v. The Delhi Pinjrapole Society), to the extent the learned Pr.

DSJ has rejected the petitioner’s request to adjourn RCT 77/2018

[being an appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 31^st

May 2018 of the learned Additional Rent Controller (the learned

ARC], till the Division Bench of this Court adjudicated on the

questions of law referred to it by a learned Single Judge in a batch of

Rent Control Revision Petitions headed by K.S. Bhandari v.

International Security Printers Pvt. Ltd.¹.

1 (2018) 167 DRJ 277

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003285

CM(M) 864/2022

Page 2 of 7

2.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length,

it appears that the petitioner is harbouring a serious misconception of

law which is that District Courts are competent only to decide

questions of law for which prior authoritative precedents in the form

of decisions of High Courts or the Supreme Court exist.

3.

The submission advanced by Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, learned

Counsel for the petitioner, is that one of the issues which arises for

consideration in RCT 77/2018 before the learned Pr. DSJ is whether a

public charitable trust carrying on public activities qualifies as a

―public institution‖ for the purposes of Section 22² of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 (the DRC Act). This issue, points out, learned

Counsel, stands referred by the afore-noted decision in K.S. Bhandari¹

by a learned Single Judge of this Court to the Division Bench. He has

drawn my attention, in this context to para 50 of the report in K.S.

Bhandari, the relevant portion of which reads thus:

―50.

On the basis of the above and for the sake of

convenience, I hereinbelow list the questions which may be

answered by the Division Bench:

222. Special provisions 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 in 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.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003285

CM(M) 864/2022

Page 3 of 7

* * * * *

(v)