Delhi District Court
Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust vs M/S Praveen Brothers on 27 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU ASIWAL
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
DLSH030023422021
RC ARC 7/2022
1. Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust
Through its Trustees
2. Shri Sandeep Gupta
3. Shri Pawan Kr. Saraswat
4. Shri S.K. Gupta
5. Shri Ajay Sharma
6. Ms. Vandana Sharma
R/o all Trustees of Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust at:
1935/124, First Floor, Fountain, Delhi-110006.
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s Praveen Brothers
Through
2. Smt. Preeti Soni (mother)
3. Master Prateek Soni (minor)
4. Ms. Priyanka Soni
All at:- IX/7005, G. F., Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar,
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27
19:11:21
+0530
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 1/29
Delhi.
....Respondents
ORDER
27.05.2025
1. Leave Declined.
Petitioner Case
2. The petitioners namely Bhatia Janj Ghar (Trust) through its
Trustees i.e. (i) Shri Sandeep Gupta, (ii) Shri Pawan Kr.
Saraswat, (iii) Shri S.K. Gupta (iv) Shri Ajay Sharma and (v)
Ms. Vandana Sharma, R/o all at: 1935/124, First Floor,
Fountain, Delhi-110006 have filed the instant eviction
petition to oust the respondents tenant namely M/s Praveen
Brothers & Ors. from the tenanted premises IX/7005, Ground
Floor, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi known as Bhatia
Janj Ghar, Delhi as the same is stated to be required for the
bonafide need and requirement of the petitioner No. 1. It is
claimed that the tenanted premises – a commercial property
measuring 7’5″X6’11” feet approximately was tenanted to the
respondents at a monthly rent of Rs.181.50/- per month
excluding electricity and other charges in the year 1985
wherein written agreement was not executed.
3. As to the background of the case, it is averred that petitioner
No. 1 is a Trust and petitioner No. 2 to 6 are its Trustees. It is
also claimed that petitioner No. 1 is the exclusive owner/
landlord of the entire property bearing No. IX/7005, Ashok
Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. That the specific object and Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:11:26
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 2/29
purpose of the petitioners’ Trust is that its movable and
immovable properties will be used for religious purposes of
Hindu Community and to provide help for needy persons of
the society and that the objective of the Trust is enshrined in
the Trust deed dated 27.12.1984.
4. It is stated that over the period of time, the Manager and
Trustees of petitioner No. 1 have changed and consequently
its management also become more efficient. It is claimed that
most of the records of the Trust have been lost and that most
of the tenants in the property bearing No. IX/7005, Ground
Floor, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi had not even paid
rent for years.
5. Accordingly, in the year 1999-2000, rent was demanded from
the tenants to revive the affairs of the Trust. However, upon
non-payment, a petition U/s 14(1)(a) of DRC Act bearing No.
RC/ARC 846/2016 titled as Bhatia Janj Ghar Vs. M/s Praveen
Brothers & Ors was preferred. In the aforesaid petition, the
Ld. Rent Controller while accepting that the petitioner No. 1
is the landlord of the property allowed the petition on
12.01.2018. However, the tenants availed the benefit of
Section 14 (2) of DRC Act and retained possession of
premises, thereafter no appeal was preferred against the
judgment.
6. Thereafter, the respondents deposited the arrears of rent in the
court in the name of the petitioner and also started depositing
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27
19:11:31
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 3/29
monthly rent in the bank account of petitioner No. 1.
Similarly, with respect to the other tenants in property No.
IX/7005, Ground Floor, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, it
is stated that, they are also depositing rent with the court and
thereafter in the bank account of petitioner No. 1. It is in
pursuance of the rent received from the various tenants that
the petitioner No. 1 was able to gain sufficient corpus to
attempt to attain its objective.
7. Thereafter, it was mutually decided by the Trustees that to
achieve the purpose of the Trust, they shall start a training
institute/ center imparting training of stitching and other allied
activities to poor, orphans, widows and other needy persons
and thereby serving society at large and enabling them to earn
a livelihood for themselves. It is claimed that the tenanted
premises is located in the biggest readymade garments market
in Asia where such type of skills are always required by
business community.
8. To further such purpose, a large training center is required for
the purpose of keeping large number of sewing machine,
cutting machine and tables for ironing and cutting, apart from
recruiting teaching an Administrative staff. It is stated that
petitioner No. 1 is having only IX/7005, Ground Floor, Ashok
Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi to meet its objects and therefore,
the tenanted premises is sufficient to achieve the aforesaid
purpose.
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:11:41
+0530
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 4/29
9. It is also stated that besides the present petition, petitions (i)
RC ARC 2/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. M/S Bankey Bihari
Ji Garments (ii) RC ARC 3/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs.
Anil Kumar Jain, (iii) RC ARC 4/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust
Vs. Prem Chand Jain, (iv) RC ARC 5/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar,
Trust Vs. Vijay Gupta, (v) RC ARC 6/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar,
Trust Vs. Mr. Narender Kumar Jain, (vi) RC ARC 8/22
Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Virender Kumar Bansal, (vii) RC
ARC 9/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Gopal Kishan Verma,
(viii) RC ARC 10/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Bhushan
Jain, (ix) RC ARC 11/22 Bhatia Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. M/S
Kishan Lal Matta And Sons, (x)RC ARC 12/22 Bhatia Janj
Ghar, Trust Vs. Vishnu Dayal, (xi) RC ARC 13/22 Bhatia
Janj Ghar, Trust Vs. Gopal Kishan Verma have been
preferred by the petitioners U/s 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act, and
therefore, all tenanted premises can be collectively used to
achieve the objectives of petitioner No. 1.
10.That petitioner No. 1 do not have any other suitable
accommodation within Delhi, NCT for its bonafide need.
11.That the petitioners also served Legal notice dated 16.03.2019
to the respondents effectively terminated the tenancy upon the
respondents but did not yield any favorable result. Hence the
present petition.
Respondent Case
12.Respondents have claimed that the petitioners have no
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:11:45
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 5/29
requirement for the tenanted premises and have filed the
present petition malafidely. It is claimed that petitioners are
guilty of suppression of material facts which are as below:-
12.1 That petitioner No. 1 does not have any legal entity and
that petitioner No. 1 is not even active for last more than 30
years and there are no Trustees as on date. That petitioner No.
3-Pawan Kumar Saraswat was shown as attorney of petitioner
No. 1 in the previous proceedings U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act
titled as Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust and Ors. Vs. Praveen Brothers
and Ors. bearing No. RC ARC 846/2016 (Old No. 36/2000)
(hereinafter referred as ‘previous litigation’) between the
parties whereas here he is asserted as one of the Trustees,
however, they have not shown how an attorney later became a
Trustee of petitioner No. 1.
12.2. It is asserted by the respondents that petitioner No. 3
Pawan Kumar Saraswat has made internal settlement with the
previous Trustees of petitioner No. 1 and has taken over the
entire properties in his own name in the year 1995-96 i.e. he
purchased the property illegally from petitioner No. 1 when
petitioner No. 1 was not even existing for more than 30 years.
12.3. It is also asserted by the respondents that the petition
itself shows the malafide of the petitioners as address of all
the petitioners is stated to be 1935/124, First Floor, Fountain,
Delhi-110006 which property is owned by petitioner No. 3.
This factum also goes on to show that petitioner No. 1 does
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:11:49
+0530
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 6/29
not exist and also has no legal entity.
12.4. It is also stated that the resolution filed by the petitioners
bears no consequences as said document does not bear
signatures of any of the supposed Trustees and it is only
petitioner No. 3 who has signed it which goes on to show that
it is petitioner No. 3 who is running the entire show and it is
for his benefit that the tenanted premises is sought to be
vacated.
12.5. That the instant petition was affirmed before an Oath
Commissioner on 06.12.2021, however, the GPA executed in
favour of petitioner No. 3 is dated 16.12.2021 and attested by
notary public on 16.12.2021 and therefore, it is proved that no
valid attorney is created in favour of petitioner No. 3 to
institute the petition. Further, that the GPA dated 16.12.2021
has no authenticity as it does not bear any photographs of the
executors and the attorney and does not even have the identity
proof of the executors.
12.6. That the petition also does not disclose if petitioner No.
1 is a public or a private Trust and the kind of activities
supposed to be carried out by petitioner No. 1. Further, the
petitioners have also not filed any documents to establish that
petitioner No. 1 remained active for the past 30 years and
carried out activities as per their aims and objectives.
12.7. That petitioners have concealed a material fact that they
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:11:54
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 7/29
have sold off a property bearing No. A-193, Derawal Nagar,
Delhi of petitioner No. 1 by way of a sale deed on
27.09.2012. It is further averred that a Trust property cannot
be sold without taking permission of a District Judge and that
it has been sold off illegally. It is stated that had the need of
the petitioners been bonafide, the aforesaid property would
not have been sold.
12.8. That the instant petition is per se not maintainable U/s
14(1) (e) of DRC Act as said section can only be invoked in
case of an individual, however, herein the bonafide need is
stated to be that of a Trust and in such a situation Section 22
of DRC Act is applicable and on this ground alone the
petition is defective.
12.9. That the area where the tenanted premises is located is
Asia’s biggest readymade garments market and training
center can only be created in the tenanted premises after
demolition of the existing structure and such demolition is the
sole purpose of petitioner No. 3 to raise a new building and
take over the entire property.
12.10. That the site plan filed with the petition is incorrect as
the actual size of the tenanted premises is more than 190 sq.
yards approximately with two sides open and one such
opening is on main Ashok Gali and the other in Prem Gali.
13.All in all therefore, it is averred that the respondents Digitally
must be
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:12:00
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 8/29
+0530
allowed an opportunity to establish its case by leading
evidence to show that the petitioners have moved the present
petition without any justifiable cause.
14.The petitioners have refuted all arguments of the respondents
as stated in its application seeking leave to defend by way of
filing a counter affidavit. Likewise, the respondents in its
rejoinder as well denied all the reiterations made by the
petitioners.
15.Case file perused. Submissions considered.
Findings and Analysis
16.In order to succeed in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act (‘DRC’) the landlord is required to
establish three conditions:-
i. There must be a relationship between the parties as landlord
and tenant
ii. The tenanted premises must be bonafidely required by the
landlord either for himself or for his family members
iii. There is no other alternate suitable accommodation
available with the landlord.
17.The nub of the issue in the entire leave to defend application
has been enumerated in paragraph 12 above which primarily
circles around the assertion that petitioner No. 3 is the actual
show runner and rest of the petitioners/ Trustees are merely
decoys and, that the petitioner No. 1 is a Trust for namesake
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:12:06
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 9/29
+0530
as the Trust has not done anything as per its objectives for the
past thirty years and that the present petition itself is defective
being filed U/s 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act instead of Section 22 of
DRC Act.
18.It is no longer res integra that the petitioner / landlord in
eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) DRC has merely
to show that he is something more than a tenant. Thus, the
existence of landlord tenant relationship, is to be ascertained
by applying the well settled and time tested propositions that
(i) for the purpose of establishing landlord-tenant relationship,
the onus of proof on the landlord is not akin to a title suit; (ii)
as long as it is established that a landlord has a better title than
that of a tenant, a tenant cannot resist a plea of existence of a
landlord tenant relationship.
19.With regard to the jural relationship between the parties, it is
an admitted position that the respondent is a tenant of the
petitioner as the factum of payment of rent to petitioner No. 1
has been specifically pleaded in the leave to defend. Further,
respondent has also admitted that after previous litigation U/s
14 (1)(a) of DRC Act, respondent herein has been regularly
paying rent to petitioner No. 1 and therefore, the element of
attornment of petitioner No. 1 as a landlord is completely
undisputed. In view of the same therefore, this Court finds
favor with the assertions of the petitioner on this count.
20.With regards testing the bonafide need of the petitioner to
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:12:10
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 10/29
obtain possession of the tenanted premises, it is well settled
that the Court must presume the bonafide requirement of the
landlord. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Ahuja v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,”[(1998) 8 SCC 119]
observed that:
“14. The crux of the ground envisaged in
clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that
the requirement of the landlord for occupation
of the tenanted premises must be bona fide.
When a landlord asserts that he requires his
building for his own occupation, the Rent
Controller shall not proceed on the
presumption that the requirement is not bona
fide. When other conditions of the clause are
satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima
facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to
draw a presumption that the requirement of the
landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts
that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to
the landlord as to how else he can adjust
himself without getting possession of the
tenanted premises. While deciding the
question of bona fides of the requirement of
the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an
endeavour as to how else the landlord could
have adjusted himself.”
21.The landlord is only required to show that the requirement of
the tenanted premises is a bonafide requirement and not
merely a whimsical or a fanciful desire by him. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the landmark case of “Deena Nath v.
Pooran Lal“[(2001) 5 SCC 705] observed that:-
“15…The statutory mandate is that there must
Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date: 2025.05.27
19:12:15 +0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 11/29
be first a requirement by the landlord which
means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful
desire by him; further, such requirement must
be bona fide which is intended to avoid a mere
whim or desire. The “bona fide requirement”
must be in praesenti and must
be manifested in actual need which would
evidence the court that it is not a mere fanciful
or whimsical desire.”
22.In the present case as well, once the landlord has stated that
he requires the tenanted premises for a particular use, the
Court is required to believe the statement to be true and
genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through
cogent material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical.
23.The assertion against the bonafide requirement of the landlord
as noted under paragraph 12 of this order shall be considered
in the succeeding paragraphs in chronological order.
23.1. To refute the assertion that petitioner No. 1 does not
have any legal entity, petitioners have produced Trust deed
dated 27.12.1984 by which five authors namely Sh. Prem
Prakash Bhatia, Sh. Bhagwan Dass Bhatia, Sh. Ganesh Dass
Bhatia, Sh. Tulsi Dass Bhatia and Sh. Kishan Chand Bhatia
have reposed the tenanted premises in addition to others on
the strength of Will dated 04.05.1964 (probated on
05.05.1966), for charitable purposes in favour of petitioner
No. 1. Said document/ Trust deed appears to be signed by all
the five authors of the Trust deed. Further, the said document/
Trust deed also names five Trustees as well as the aims and
Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date: 2025.05.27
19:12:19 +0530
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 12/29
objectives of the Trust. Nowhere in the leave to defend
application has the respondent refuted the creation of Trust
deed dated 27.12.1984 and nowhere have they pleaded that
the authors of the Trust did not have locus to create the Trust
deed or to repose the property for any charitable purpose,
therefore, merely not producing the documentation for entry
and exit of present and past Trustees, cannot considered to be
so fatal as to deny existence of the Trust. Furthermore, the
attornment of petitioner No. 1 as landlord by respondents is
sufficient, and therefore, internal arrangement of petitioner
No. 1 cannot be made subject of scrutiny by a tenant in
proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act. Therefore merely
stating that the Trust does not exist is of no consequence.
23.2. Secondly, the respondent has also vehemently
contended that the Trust has not done anything to achieve its
aims and objectives for the past 30 years, said assertion is also
not found to be an appealing one as it appears that the
respondent intends to take advantage of its own wrong as the
business being carried out by the respondent in the tenanted
premises also does not fall within the parameter of the aims
and objectives of the Trust. If the instant assertion of the
respondent is accepted to be true on its face, then it would
also mean that the petitioners would never be in the position
to run any activity in the tenanted premises in alignment with
the objectives of the Trust if the respondent continues to use
the premises for its own business.
Further, even for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:12:26
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 13/29
the petitioner No. 1 has not carried out any Trust related
activity in the tenanted premises for more than three decades,
then the respondent was necessarily required to plead the
provision of law or any judicial pronouncement to the effect
that continued lack of activity of a Trust would ipso facto lead
to the assumption that the Trust has ceased to exist.
Further, it is also observed that the the parties are at
loggerheads at least since the year 2000 regarding the
tenanted premises when the previous litigation U/s 14 (1) (a)
of DRC Act was instituted between the parties wherein the
petitioner herein had sought vacation of the tenanted premises
on the ground of non-payment of rent, it was only due to the
benefit of Section 14 (2) of DRC Act that the property
remained in the possession of the respondents. Therefore, it is
clear that the petitioners are attempting to get the tenanted
premises vacated to run the Trust activities at least for a good
quarter of a century.
23.3. Respondents have also vehemently resisted the claim of
the petitioners on the grounds that it is only petitioner No.
3/Sh. Pawan Kumar Saraswat who is the actual brains behind
the entire petition as the property is sought to be vacated for
his personal benefit as he has made internal arrangements to
the effect that the previous Trustees have sold off the property
to him. The said objection of the respondents is found to be
completely toothless as except for assertion nothing material
has been brought on record to make this version believable.
The only aspect that has been raised by the respondents with Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:12:32
+0530
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 14/29
some material is that in the previous round of litigation U/s 14
(1)(a) of DRC Act, petitioner No. 3 had deposed as an
attorney of petitioner No. 1 Trust and in the present
proceedings he has suddenly become a Trustee. To refute the
said objection, petitioners have pleaded that at the time the
previous litigation was going on, petitioner No. 3 was indeed
only an attorney, however, later on he was accepted as one of
the Trustees. To support such averments, petitioners have
relied on extracts of meeting of the Trustees dated 05.01.2019
wherein petitioner No. 3/ Pawan Kumar Saraswat has been
named as a Trustee by the rest. This document itself is
sufficient to show that subsequently petitioner No. 3 was
accepted as a Trustee of petitioner No. 1 Trust. In such a
situation, respondents were obligated to show that an attorney
can later on never be accepted as a Trustee, however, no
averments to that effect have been made.
Furthermore, respondents have raised doubt as to the
intention of petitioner No. 3 by claiming that he is guilty of
making illegal arrangements regarding the properties of the
Trust as far back as year 1995-96. Firstly, once again the
instant assertion is merely an averment and nothing more as
there is nothing on record to make it believable. In addition, it
is seen that the petitioners have filed the pleadings i.e. its
petition as well as the written statement filed by the
respondents in the previous litigation. On perusal of the
petition as well as the written statement, it is found that even
in those proceedings, petitioner No. 3/ Pawan Kumar
Saraswat was named as an attorney of petitioner No. 1,
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:12:38 +0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 15/29
however, the instant objection that in the year 1995-96
petitioner No. 3 took over the properties of the Trust has not
been pleaded by the respondents for reasons best known to
them. If the respondent raises grave doubts as to the
constitution and functioning of the Trust, reliable material
shaking the credibility and intention of the Trustees was
required, however, leave to defend is silent on that aspect.
23.4. Next objection, is that in the memo of parties, address of
all the petitioners is mentioned as 1935/124, First Floor
Fountain Delhi-110006 and that the said property is owned by
petitioner No. 3 and therefore, this itself is sufficient to show
that all the supposed Trustees are under the control of
petitioner No. 3. Once again, the aforesaid assertion is
unsupported without anything material to show that the
aforesaid property is owned by petitioner No. 3, with these
many unsupported assertions, respondents were at least
required to plead the source of knowledge about petitioner
No. 3 and his property, however, the leave to defend remains
elusive on the aspect. Rather, in reply to leave to defend,
petitioners have clarified that the said property is owned by
one M/s Peerless General Finance and Investment Company
Ltd. And the petitioner No. 1 Trust is a tenant in the aforesaid
property. To substantiate the said assertion, petitioners have
relied on the cross examination of PW-1 in the deposition
during the trial in previous litigation wherein the said aspect
has been covered by the Ld. Trial Court. It does appear that
the same assertion has been made by the respondents in the
Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date: 2025.05.27
19:12:46 +0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 16/29
previous litigation as well even then the petition U/s 14 (1)(a)
of DRC Act was allowed in favour of the petitioners herein.
Therefore, only for the reasons that all petitioners have
mentioned a single address cannot be deemed to be a triable
issue.
23.5. The next objection to the bonafide of the petitioners is
that the petition is defective in the sense that the resolution
accompanied with the petition is not signed by rest of the
Trustees, and therefore, the present petition is non-est. On
perusal of the document which is titled as “extract of the
meeting of Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust held on 05.01.2019 at
office of the Trust”. It is found that the said document has
been created by all the Trustees of petitioner No. 1 in its
meeting held on 05.01.2019 and they have resolved that the
tenanted premises is required for opening a training center
and therefore necessary legal action shall be initiated against
all the tenants of property No. IX/7005, Ashok Gali, Gandhi
Nagar, Delhi. The document is admittedly signed by only
petitioner No. 3. The title of the document itself is sufficient
to show that the document is only an excerpt of the meeting
held on 05.01.2019 and not the minute book itself. The said
excerpt is certified to be true by petitioner No. 3. Here, it is
not the claim of respondents that the said meeting never took
place rather the objection of the respondents is only to the
extent of the aforesaid document/ extract of meeting. There is
no law to the effect that in any legal proceedings extract of
minute of the meeting cannot be brought and that the original
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:12:52 +0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 17/29
minute book has to be produced at the time of institution of
the case. Therefore, the aforesaid objection is found to be
inconsequential.
23.6. Next objection is to the effect that the petition is
accompanied with a General Power Attorney in favour of
petitioner No. 3 which is dated 16.12.2021 whereas the
petition has been instituted with affidavits dated 06.12.2021
therefore the attorney in favour of petitioner No. 3 is after the
fact and therefore the petition is defective. On perusal of the
petition and affidavit supporting the petition, it is found that
the petition is filed along with the affidavits of all the five
Trustees i.e. petitioner No. 2 to 6. Therefore, it cannot be
accepted that the petition is filed without supporting affidavits
of the petitioners. The GPA dated 16.12.2021 only appears to
be a document created by petitioner No. 2, 4, 5 and 6 (other
Trustees) in favour of petitioner No. 3 for the purpose of
representing them during the trial if at all required. Therefore,
it cannot be held that the petition is defective due to lack of
necessary affirmation under Oaths Act.
23.7. The next objection pertaining to the disclosure of nature
of the Trust i.e. public or private is also found to be meritless
as disclosure of the nature of the Trust is not a necessary
requirement of law under Delhi Rent Control Act. Even
otherwise, petitioners have filed the Trust deed dated
27.12.1984 which also discloses the aims and objectives of
the Trust. Furthermore, as observed above, once the landlord
Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date: 2025.05.27
19:12:57 +0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 18/29
tenant relationship is established the internal arrangement and
technicalities of the landlord is not the prerogative of the
tenant.
23.8. The biggest bone of contention between the parties is
with respect to maintainability of the petition U/s 14 (1)(e) of
Delhi Rent Control Act, as respondents have strongly asserted
that the correct provision of law to be invoked in the present
proceedings is Section 22 of DRC Act. To understand the
objection, it is first necessary to refer to Section 22 of the Act
which reads as under:-
22 Special provision for recovery of
possession in certain cases. – where the
landlord in respect of any premises in 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
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
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:13:02
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 19/29
was 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 imply, 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 bonafide
by the public institution for the furtherance
of its activities.
Explanation:- for the purpose 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.
On perusal of the provision, it is found that Section 22 of
DRC Act is drafted specifically for landlords which are
company, other body corporate, local authority or any public
institution. It is the version of the respondents that the
petitioner No. 1 would fall into the category of the public
institution and not a private Trust as the objectives of the
Trust was to serve general public by using the property for
charitable purposes such as running of dispensary,
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:13:07
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 20/29
educational institution, library and other social activities and
for religious purposes of the Hindu Community. It is also
argued that interplay between Section 22 and 14 (1)(e) of
DRC Act has been considered by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in judgment titled as K. S. Bhandari Vs. International
Security Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Frontier Sales Vs. Superior
Exim Pvt. Ltd., Jai Rani & Anr. Vs. Lala Joti Pershad Shiv
Mandir Trust & Ors., Shanti Devi Vs. Digambar Jain
Panchayat Samaj, Badi Panchayat Vaish Bise Aggarwal Vs.
Sunil Gupta, Badi Panchayat Vaish Bise Aggarwal Vs. Jai
Prakash Goel, Surendra Kaur & Anr. Vs. Anoop Singh
Charitable Trust, all decided on 22.12.2017, wherein the issue
of application of Section 22 of DRC Act on public charitable
Trust carrying on organized activities was referred to a Larger
Bench. It is an admitted position as of today that the aforesaid
referral is yet to be decided by a Larger Bench of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
Per contra, petitioners have averred that petitioner Trust
is a private Trust created on 27.12.1984 and therefore Section
22 of DRC Act is inapplicable, the petitioners have relied on
the judgments titled National Distributor Company Vs. Sant
Lal Godha and Sons Charity Trust and Birdhi Chand Jain
Charitable Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Shyam Lal, both decided by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 13.01.2012 and 04.09.1972
respectively.
In this context order dated 02.06.2023 pronounced by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in RC. Rev. 257/2022 Bhaskar Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:13:13
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 21/29
Refactories and Stoneware Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ishwar
Industries Ltd. wherein , it is held that;
33… though the abovementtioned judgments
are in relation to issues pending before the
Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in my opinion, they show that even during
such pendency, the other courts may and
should continue to decide the cases and
applying the law as it then prevails. This is
so, as mere pendency of a reference before
the Larger Bench does not denude on the lis
before them. Similarly, merely because of
the pendency of the above proceedings
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
before this Court, respondent No. 1 cannot
be set to be bound to necessarily hold its
hands and not exercised the jurisdiction
otherwise vested in it under the statute.
Maybe, it would have been prudent for
respondent No. 1 to have awaited the
outcome of the above referred petitions
before the Supreme Court and before this
court, however, merely for its decision not to
wait, the impugned order cannot be set to be
without jurisdiction or so perverse so as to
warrant to be quashed by this Court in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:13:18
+0530
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 22/29
15.2. the law as it stands today recognizes
the right of a corporate entity to maintain a
petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC
Act for, its bona fide need. In this regard, it
would be relevant to refer to the decision of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Ravinder Kumar Verma Vs. Laxmi Narayan
Mandir Nirman Sabha & Anr., 2016 SCC
OnLine 6024. The relevant extract of the
said judgment reads as under:-
16. A conjoint reading of two Sections U/s
14 (1)(e) and Section 22 of the DRC Act
does not show that a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act or a public
institution cannot apply for eviction U/s 14
(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
Further in judgment title Satnam Kaur Vs. Ashlar Stores
Pvt. Ltd. decided on 19.03.2009 by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, it was held that
9 this court in the case of Chunni Lal Vs.
Univerity of Delhi reported in 1970 RCR
742 drew a distinction between Section 14
and 22 of DRC Act in the following terms:-
… The relationship of Section 14 and 22,
therefore, is that all landlords are able to
apply U/s 14 but only the landlords who are
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:13:22
+0530
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 23/29
corporate bodies or public institution are
entitled to apply U/s 22. This necessarily
means that such corporate and public
institution landlords have been given the
ordinary grounds U/s 14 and additional
grounds U/s 22. This accords with their
position of being primarily similar to natural
person and some times being different from
them. I therefore, find that the corporate and
public institution landlords are entitled to the
ordinary grounds of eviction U/s 14 like
other landlords and also to the special
grounds of eviction U/s 22 which are
peculiar to the corporate and public
institution landlords and that Section 22 does
not deprive the corporate and the public
institution landlords from the benefits of
Section 22.
On a combined reading of Bhaskar Refactories (supra)
and Satnam Kaur (supra), the net effect that manifests is that
pendency of an issue before a Larger Bench cannot bar a
party to obtain relief under the prevalent law. Further, on
drawing an analogy it is also clear that the legal entities
mentioned in U/s 22 are not precluded from preferring a
petition U/s 14 (1)(e) even when Section 22 of DRC may
apply.
Therefore, the arguments raised by the respondents that Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
Date:
ASIWAL 2025.05.27
19:13:27
+0530RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 24/29
the instant petition is not maintainable U/s 14(1)(e) is not
found to be tenable in law. Furthermore, it is also found that
the nature of Trust i.e. public or private is immaterial to
decide the present controversy and it is not found to be a
triable issue.
23.9. The next objection taken by the respondent is regarding
the sale of property bearing No. A-193, Derawal Nagar, Delhi
admeasuring 134 sq. yards corner plot, by petitioner No. 1 by
way of sale deed on 27.09.2012 wherein it is asserted by the
petitioners that petitioners have not only sold off the said
property illegally but the sale also indicates that despite
having a sufficient alternate accommodation, petitioners
chose to assert their supposed bona fide requirement against
the respondents. It is to be noted that respondent has not filed
any transfer documents substantiating their plea. Rather, in
reply to leave to defend, petitioners have stated that the
property at Derawal Nagar was never allotted to petitioner
No. 1 rather it was allotted to one Smt. Prakash Devi Bhatia
who transferred the property to one Shyam Prakash Gupta. It
is admitted by the petitioner No. 1 Trust had acquired certain
rights in the property through Mr. Shyam Prakash Gupta,
however Ms. Shashi Bhatia went on to create third party
interest in the property by executing sale deed dated
27.09.2012 in collusion with few of old Trustees. Petitioners
have further submitted that the aforesaid array of transactions
lead to a multifarious litigation which only ended in a
settlement before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. It is also
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:13:33
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 25/29
+0530
submitted that petitioner No. 1 never received any monetary
consideration after the said settlement. To strengthen the
submission, petitioners have filed copy of order dated
10.08.2015 of Hon’ ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS)
2009/2014 along with mediation settlement agreement dated
29.05.2015 and Trust Resolution dated 29.05.2015. On
perusal of the aforesaid documents, it is found that the sale of
the Derawal Nagar property was carried out by one Shashi
Bhatia, w/o Sh. Prem Prakash Bhatia and that no
consideration in the said sale was taken by the petitioner No.
1 Trust. Even otherwise, the present petition has been
instituted in the year 2022 i.e. 10 years after, the aforesaid has
been carried out. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of
institution of the present petition, the property of Derawal
Nagar was not available as an alternate accommodation to the
petitioners.
23.10. The assertion of the respondents that the petitioners
intend to demolish the entire structure is not found to be
carrying any value as it is the case of the petitioners that they
intend to construct a training center at the tenanted premises
after joining the surrounding areas. Therefore, the mere
intention to demolish the structure to achieve the aims and
objections of the Trust cannot be accepted as a triable issue.
Furthermore, it is only the prerogative of the landlord to
decide as to the form and structure of the property and a
tenant cannot be allowed to dictate his own terms on the
landlord. In addition, the concerned area being a cloth market
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date:
2025.05.27
19:13:40
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 26/29
+0530
also is not found to be a triable issue as the nature and
character of the market cannot be the sole criteria for the
petitioners to start a training center when specifically the
petitioners do not have any other immovable property at their
disposal, to attain the goal and objectives of the petitioners
Trust.
23.11. Further, the respondents also assert that the area of the
premises is more than 190 sq. yards and therefore, petitioners
are guilty of concealment. However, it is seen that
respondents have not filed any site plan of their own to
substantiate such objections and therefore, the same is also
found to be groundless.
24.Examining on the said touchstone, this Court is of the view
that petitioner has successfully shown his bonafide
requirement of the tenanted premises for opening a training
institute/center for stitching and other allied activities in
consonance with the aims and objectives of petitioner No. 1
Trust and there is nothing on the record to suggest otherwise.
25.With regards the requirement of there being alternative
accommodation being available with the petitioner, it is to be
noted that it has been repeatedly held that the Courts are not
to sit in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the
available property of the landlord is to be best utilised by him.
The landlord is the absolute owner of his property and the
Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date: 2025.05.27
19:13:44 +0530
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 27/29
best person to decide which property is to be utilised in what
way is the landlord himself. In addition, the respondent also
cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to utilise his property.
The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their
specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard.
It is not within the purview of the courts to impose directives
on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen
usage of the tenanted premises. Essentially, the courts should
refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the
landlord’s residential choices. In “Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem
Machinery & Co.” [(2000) 1 SCC 679] the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was of the view that:-
“10…It is true that the plaintiff landlord in his
evidence stated that there were a number of
other shops and houses belonging to him but
he made a categorical statement that his said
houses and shops were not vacant and that the
suit premises is suitable for his business
purpose. It is a settled position of law that the
landlord is the best judge of his requirement
for residential or business purpose and he has
got complete freedom in the matter. (See
Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC
353] .) In the case in hand the plaintiff
landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the
suit premises for starting his business as it was
suitable and it cannot be faulted.”
26.The respondents have not shown, stated or pleaded that
petitioners currently own any property except for the tenanted
premises to fulfill their bona fide requirement. The only
Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date: 2025.05.27
19:13:48 +0530
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 28/29
assertion regarding an alternate accommodation was made
with respect to a property at Derawal Nagar. However, that
issue has already been dealt in paragraph No. 23.9. Even
otherwise it is now a matter of record that petitioners do not
own any property presently or at the time of institution of the
petition so as to qualify as an alternate accommodation.
27.Taking into account the entire conspectus of circumstances as
discussed above therefore, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner landlord has successfully shown that the tenanted
premises is best suitable accommodation for petitioner needs
and that he is the landlord of the same. Accordingly,
application seeking leave to defend is dismissed and eviction
order with regards property bearing No. IX/7005, Ground
Floor, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi admeasuring
7’5″X6’11” feet approximately (shown in red colour in the
site plan) is passed in favor of the petitioners and against the
respondents.
28.The petitioners landlord shall not be entitled to get possession
of the tenanted premises before the expiry of six months from
today as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
29.File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
Digitally signed
compliance. CHARU by CHARU
ASIWAL
ASIWAL Date: 2025.05.27
19:13:56 +0530
(Charu Asiwal)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/Shahdara
KKD Courts/Delhi/27.05.2025
RC ARC 7/2022 Bhatia Janj Ghar Trust Vs. M/s Praveen Brothers pg. no. 29/29