S Gurmeet Singh v. Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: October 18, 2016 + CM(M) 1123/2015, CMNos. 26909/2015 & 5488/2016 S GURMEET SINGH Petitioner Through Mr. Rajiv Bakshi and Mr. Ayush Chaurasia, Advocates.
versus GURUDWARA SRI GURU SINGH SABHA Respondent Through Mr. J.K.Chawla, MrVinay Chadtla and Mr.T.P.Ravi, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL) For order see, CM(M) 1121/2015, titled 'Manoj Khorana v. Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha', For the reasons stated in the above sited petition, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand 'disposed of.
(JAYANT NATH) JUDGE OCTOBER 18, 2016/n ib corrected and signed on 03.07.20 17 By:AMULYA
*
IN THE HiGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: October 18, 20 16 ± CM(M) lL2I/20l5 and CMN05.26887/2S& 58/2016 MANOJ KHURANA Petitioner Through Mr. Rajiv Bakshi and Mr. Ayush Chaurasia, Advocates.
versus GURUDWARA SRI GURU SINGH SABHA .....Respondent Through Mr. J.K.Chawla, Mr.Vinay Chadda and Mr.T.P.R.'dvi, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAVANT NATHI J. (ORAkI This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to impugn the order of eviction confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as RCT) dated 12.10.2015 under section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as The DRC Act).
The brief facts which led to filing of the eviction petition under section 22 of the Act are that the respondent is said to be running a i-iomeopaihic dispensary for the general public without any distinction on the basis of any caste. creed or religion. It is averred in the Eviction Petition that mere a' Page I of S CM(M) 1121/2015
three doctors attending to patients in the dispensary. Two of the doctors are rendering free services in the dispensary whereas the third one is paid a monthly salary. It is averred that on account of success and popularity of the dispensary there are roughly 200 patients visiting the dispensary for treatment daily. The dispensary is presently being run in a room measuring 15 feet x 11 feet and on account of shortage of space great inconvenience is being felt by doctors, patients and dispensary staff. it is stated that the respondent also seeks to run an Allopathic dispensary but due to lack of space is unable to do it. it is stated that there are seven tenants including the respondent in the eight shops.
it is planned that in the eventuality of eviction taking place three shops would be used for attending to the patients by three doctors in separate rooms. Two shops will be used for running an Allopathic dispensary. One shop will be used for attending to female patients by a lady doctor. One room shall be used for storing medicine and other stores. Before the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as The ARC) the parties led their evidence. The petitioner examined himself as RW1 whereas Shri Kuldip Singh member of the Gurudwara was examined on behalf of the respondent as PW- l.
The ARC gave his finding on three different issues. Regarding maintainability of the case under section 22 of the DRC Act, the ARC noted the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is not a public institution within the meaning of Section 22 of the DRC Act. The impugned order held that the respondent in view of the averments made in the Eviction Petition claims itself to be a public institution as it is stated that it is running a dispensary for charitable purposes. The impugned order based on the averments in the petition and the evidence concluded that the respondent is a CM(M) 1121/2015
to public institution within the meaning of section 22 of the DRC Act as it is a Gurudwara open to all public. It is also admitted that the Gurudwara offers iangar (food) to the generaF public. It was also an admitted fact that the respondent is running a dispensary with the help of some doctors which fact is admitted by the petitioner in the site plan filed where the location of the dispensary is stated. Medical services are being rendered free/cost basis. Hence, the ARC came to the conclusion that the respondent is a public institution within the meaning of section 22 of the DRC Act. 5.
The impugned order passed by the ARC also noted that no particulars or names of the doctors are placed on record but it noted that there is an admission of the petitioner in the written statement and cross-examination that there is a dispensary in existence and few doctors especially Dr.Thapa was rendering services to a few patients who used to come. Hence, an organised activity, may not be of a large scale, was in existence. The impugned order also noted the plea of the respondent that they wanted to start a public library, and satsang bhawan in the premises. The impugned order also noted the bona fide requirement of the respondent. It recorded that from the evidence produced on record it is clear that the respondent has proved the need to the extent of expanding the scope of the dispensary. It noted that the respondent is facing difficulties as the space where the dispensary is being run is only a room of 15 x 11 feet. It concluded that the need of the respondent is bona fide.
On the issue of existence of alternative suitable accommodation it noted the plea of the petitioner that the respondent has ample space in the basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The shops in question are situated on the ground floor. The existing dispensary is situated on the CM(M) 1121/2015
'- ground floor. As the dispensary is being run from the ground floor itself, the ARC concluded that the respondent has every right to chose a place keeping in view the proposed activity. Accordingly, the Eviction Petition was allowed.
6.
The petitioner filed an appeal under section 38 of the DRC Act before the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT). By the impugned order the RCT dismissed the appeal. Some of the salient points noted by the RCT in the impugned order is that firstly the order of the ARC is based on material evidence available with the trial court and the conclusions drawn are based on sound principles of law. Secondly, it was concluded that the reasoning of the ARC regarding the plea of the petitioner for alternative accommodation being the other floors in the same Gurudwara was rightly rejected by the ARC. Further, the RCT noted the two contentions of the petitioner that the respondent is not a public institution. The plea was rejected. On the issue of bona fide requirement, the RCT held that the impugned order has exhaustively and elaborately dealt with the issue in question. 7.
1 have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued as follows:- That section 22 of the DRC Act is not applicable to facts of this case. That PW-1 the witness of the respondent was not authorised to appear. He also was not aware of the facts and circumstances of the case as is evident from his testimony where he has stated that he has no knowledge about the terms and conditions on which the said shop was let out to the petitioner and hence his testimony was wrongly taken into account. 8.
Section 22 of the DRC Act reads as follows:- CM(M) 1121/2015