AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K.Gauba, J
The respondent trust had instituted a case for eviction (E-560/13) against the petitioners and two others in respect of premises described as three
rooms, tin shed, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and WC on the first floor and two rooms, open terrace, one space and one store in stairs on the second floor
of flat No.1027/16/2, Paiwalan, Chawri Bazar near Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006 as shown more elaborately in the site plan in red colour annexed to the
eviction petition, invoking ground of bona fide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioners, concededly tenants
in the subject premises, claiming to have been inducted in such capacity by late Shyam Kishan, filed an application seeking leave to contest in terms of
Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The rent controller considered the said application but found no substance and, therefore, by order
dated 08.04.2016 declined the request and consequently passed an order of eviction which is impugned by the revision petition at hand.
Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone through the record, this court finds no merit in the revision petition. The reasons
may be set out hereinafter.
It is not in dispute that Shyam Kishan was the erstwhile owner of the subject property. The petitioners are also not in a position to raise a dispute
about the fact that the said Shyam Kishan by way of Deed of Settlement dated 23.09.1982 had passed on the right, title and interest of the subject
property in favour of the respondent trust. Noticeably, the petitioners in their leave to defend application themselves described the subject property as
a “trust property†while no issue was sought to be agitated about the title of the respondent trust qua the subject property, it was only the
authorization of the secretary to institute the eviction case which was raised as a ground. The learned rent controller has found no deficiency in this
regard nor any such deficiency has been shown or demonstrated before this court and, therefore, the said ground calls for no trial.
It is not disputed â€" rather it is properly demonstrated by requisite material on record â€" that the respondent trust runs medical facilities providing
services to the society at large. The trust runs a number of dispensaries, hospital, welfare centre, clinics, etc., the constituency catered to being poor
sections of society. This is borne out from the memorandum of association, copy of which was shown and to the genuineness of which there is no
contest. The plea that the claim is sham, bogus or a façade is just in the air with nothing placed on record to substantiate.
The petitioners raised the plea before the rent controller that the trust owns and is in possession of a number of properties in various portions in
which different tenants have been accommodated for residential or commercial purposes. Even if the court presumes this to be a fact, it does not
assist the petitioners in any manner for resisting the case for eviction on the ground of bona fide need, in absence of contention that another tenant
was inducted in a vacant portion during the period immediately before the filing of the petition for eviction.
The plea that the purpose of expansion of charitable hospital facilities, which is the ground on which eviction is sought, can be served by utilizing
spaces available in the building is as vague as it could be. The petitioners were unable to point out any vacant space.
The arguments raised that the locality where the premises is situate is congested and suffers from noise pollution on which account no patient would
get effective treatment is wholly devoid of substance. Medical facilities, particularly by charitable institutions, in congested areas, only augment and
complement the medical services provided by the State or municipal agencies. A congested area does not mean the local inhabitants must go out to far
flung areas for such purposes.
In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order is found not to be suffering from any error or infirmity. The learned rent controller has
appreciated the facts and circumstances in proper perspective and has taken a correct view which calls for no interference.
The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.