http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SUDHAN SINGH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/01/1986

BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR  710            1986 SCR  (1) 131  1986 SCC  (1) 611        1986 SCALE  (1)81

ACT:      Delhi Rent  Control Act, 1958, s. 22(d) and Explanation thereto - ’Public Institution’ - "For the furtherance of its activities" - Interpretation of.      University    requiring    building    for    providing accommodation  to   its  employees  -  Eviction  petition  - Maintainability of.

HEADNOTE:      A building  was bequeathed  by its owner by his will in favour  of   the  respondent-University.   The   respondent- University probated the will and decided to use the building to provide  accommodation for  its  employees  and  on  this ground  filed   applications  for   eviction   against   the petitioners under s. 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958.      In the  eviction proceedings  the  petitioners  tenants contended: (1) that the ground of bona fide need was outside the objects  mentioned  in  the  will  and,  therefore,  the applications were not maintainable and (2) that the building was non-residential  and as  such the petition seeking their eviction from  the building  for the purpose of residence of its  employees   was  not  maintainable.  The  Rent  Control authorities  concurrently  held  that  the  only  limitation placed on  the University in the will was against selling or disposing of the property. The Tribunal observed that it was not disputed  before it that the building was residential in nature  though   some  portion  of  it  had  been  used  for commercial purposes. All the courts below concurrently found that the  bona fide  need was well founded and hence ordered eviction.      In  appeal  to  this  Court,  by  the  tenants  it  was contended that  the use of the building for the residence of the employees  of the  University would  not come within the expression "for the furtherance of its activities", and that the activities  of the  University were  restricted to  what took place within the University and providing accommodation for its employees would not come within that concept. 132      Dismissing the appeal and special leave petitions, ^      HELD: 1. The eviction applications came squarely within s. 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 and the order of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

eviction passed  against the  appellants and the petitioners was correct. [134 E; 135 C]      2. That the University of Delhi is a public Institution cannot be disputed because the Explanation to s. 22 makes it abundantly clear. Section 22 enables a public institution to maintain a  petition for  eviction notwithstanding  anything contained in  s. 14  or any  other law  if  the  application discloses sufficient  grounds to indicate that it is for the furtherance of its activities. [134 F-G]      3. Residential  accommodation for  the employees of the University is  one of the most pressing requirements to make the employees contented. A University cannot be properly run when its employees are without a roof above them. Therefore, to provide  accommodation to  the employees  directly  comes within  the   expression  "for   the  furtherance   of   its activities". Use  of the  building for  the residence of the employees is  intimately linked  with  its  activities.  The requirements of  the  section,  in  the  instant  case,  are satisfied. [135 A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos. 813- 817 of 1979 etc.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  8.11.1978  of  the Delhi High  Court in  S.A. Nos.  251, 281, 290, 291 & 298 of 1978.      U.R. Lalit,  V.N. Ganpule,  Mrs. V.D.  Khanna  and  Uma Dattar, for the appellants.      Dr.  Y.S.   Chitale,  G.L.  Sanghi,  P.Gaur,  Umesh  B. Bhagwat, V.P. Choudhary and Miss Sushma for the respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KHALID, J. The common question that arises for decision in these  appeals by  special leave  and the  special  leave petitions against  the judgment  of the  Delhi High Court is the scope  of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (’The Act’ for short). An application for eviction was filed by the 133 respondent -  the University of Delhi - against its tenants, the appellants  and the petitioners, under Section 22 of the Act seeking  eviction on  the ground  that the  buildings in their occupation were required for the use of its employees. Notices terminating  their tenancies  were served  on  them. These applications  were resisted  by the tenants on various grounds. The  Additional Rent  Controller, Delhi,  The  Rent Control Tribunal,  Delhi, and  the High  Court  concurrently found in  favour of  the Delhi  University and held that the bona fide  need urged  was well  founded and  hence  ordered eviction.      The building  in question  known as  Manmohan building, Yusuf Sarai, belonged to the late Shri Manmohan Kishan Kaul. He had  bequeathed it  by his  will dated  18.1.1963 to  the Delhi University.  The University  obtained probate  of  the will from  the High  Court. The  executive  Council  of  the University decided to institute eviction proceedings against the tenants for the use of its employees.      The  contention   of  the   tenants  in   the  eviction proceedings was  that  the  ground  urged  was  outside  the objects mentioned  in the  will and as such the applications were not  maintainable. This  plea was  repelled by  all the authorities. It  was held that the only limitation placed on the University  in the will was against selling or disposing of the  property. The tenants put forward another objection,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

in that  the buildings  were non-residential and as such the petition seeking eviction of the building for the purpose of the residence  of its  employees was  not maintainable. This was also  repelled. In  fact, the  Tribunal observed that it was not  disputed before  it that  the building  as such was residential in  nature, though  some portion of the building had been  used for  commercial  purposes.  These  concurrent findings are not, therefore, open to attack now.      The only  question that  survives for consideration now is as to whether the Delhi University was entitled to invoke the provisions  of Section  22  of  the  Act  to  evict  its tenants. For a proper appreciation of this contention, it is necessary to read Section 22 of the Act in full:      "22. 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, 134 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 pemises 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 the 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." The Rent  Control authorities  and the High Court found that the  application   came  squarely  within  Section  22.  The contention,  therefore,  does  not  admit  of  any  detailed discussion at  our hands.  Even so,  we will briefly examine the Section  and answer the contention on the interpretation of the  Section. That  the University  of Delhi  is a Public Institution cannot be disputed because the Explanation makes it abundantly clear. Section 22 enables a public institution to maintain a petition for eviction notwithstanding anything contained in  Section 14 or any other law if the application discloses sufficient  grounds to indicate that it is for the furtherance of  its activities.  This means that in invoking Section 22,  a public  institution is  not  subject  to  the restrictions imposed by Section 14 or by any other law. Sub- clause (d),  quoted above, is the relevant provision for our purposes. it  was strongly  contended that  the use  of  the building  for   the  residence   of  the  employees  of  the University will  not come  within the  expression  ’for  the furtherance of its activities.’. It was contended that the 135 activities of  the University  are restricted  to what takes place within  the University and providing accommodation for its employees  will not come within that concept. We have no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

hesitation to reject this contention. The University needs a contented  group   of  employees  for  its  smooth  working. Residential  accommodation   for  the   employees   of   the University is  one of the most pressing requirements to make the employee  contented. A Unviersity cannot be properly run when its employees are without a roof above them. Therefore, to provide  accommodation to  the employees  directly  comes within  the   expression  ’for   the  furtherance   of   its activities.’ Use  of the  building for  the residence of the employees is  intimately linked with its activities. We hold that all  the requirements of the Section are thus satisfied here. It  is not  necessary to deal with the decisions cited at the  bar for  the reason  that this  section  is  clearly attracted to  the facts  of the case. We hold that the order of  eviction   passed  against   the  appellants   and   the petitioners was  correct. The  appeals and the special leave petitions   are    accordingly   dismissed,   but   in   the circumstances of the case, without costs. The appellants are given three  months time  to surrender  vacant possession of the building  in their possession on each of them filing the usual undertaking within three weeks from today. A.P.J.                 Appeals and Petitions dismissed. 136