SUDHAN SINGH AND ORS.versusUNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.

                                                                 131

                                                                       A
                            SUDHAN SINGH AND ORS.
                                      v •.
                        UNIVERSITY OF DEU!I AND ORS.
I                              JANUARY 14, 1986
                                                                       B
                   [O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.]
..,
            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 acconnnoda-
      tion to its employees - Eviction petitiOn - Maintainability
      of.
                                                                       c
            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
      acconmodation for its employees and on this ground filed
      applications for eviction against the petitioners under s. 22
                                                                       D
      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 apd, therefore, the appli-
      cations were not maintainable and (2) that the building was
      non-residential and as such the petition seeking their
                                                                       E
      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 Tri_bunsl observed that it was not disputed
      before it that the building was residential in nature though
                                                                       F
      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 tensnts it was contended
      that the use of the building for the residence of the
      employees of the University would not come within the expres-
                                                                       G
      sion "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.                H
    132                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [19861 1 s.c.R.

A
            Dismissing the appeal and special leave petitions,

          llEUl: 1. The eviction applications came squarely within
    s. 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 and the order of
    eviction passed against the appellants and the petitioners was
    correct. [134 E; 135 C]
          2. That the University of Delhi is a public Institution
B
    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 dis-
    closes sufficient grounds to indicate that it is for the
    furtherance of its activities. [134 F-G]
c
          3. Residential accomnodation for the employees of the
    University is one of the mst pressing requirements to make
    the employees contented. A University cannot be properly run
    when its employees are without a roof above them. 'lberefore,
D
    to provide accomllX>dation to the employees directly comes with-
    in the expression "for the furtherance of its activities". Use
    of the building for the residence of the employees is inti-
    mately linked with its 'activities. '!be requirements of the
    section, in the instant case, are satisfied. [135 A-Bl

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICIION : Civil Appeal Nos. 813-817
    of    i 979 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
F
    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.

G
            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 peti-
    tions against the judgment of the Delhi High Court is the
    scope of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('The
H
    Act' for short). An application for eviction was filed by the
                SUDHAN SINGH v. UNIVERSITY [KHALID, J.]              133


)   respondent - the University of Delhi - against its tenants,                    A
    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 appli-
    cations were resisted by the tenants on various grounds. The
    Additional Rent Controiler, Delhi, The Rent Control Tribunal,                  B
    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, be longed 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               c
    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 pro-
)
    ceedings was that the ground urged was outside the objects
    mentioned in the will and as such the applications were not                0
    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, in that the
    buildings were non-residential and as such the petition seek-
    ing eviction of the building for the purpose of the residence              E
    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.                                                         F
          The only question that survives for consideration n0"7 ls
    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:
          11
           22. Where the landlord in respect of any premtses is            G
    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,

                                                                           H
    134                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1986] 1 S.C.R.
A
    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 sa~isfied -
B              (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
c              the terms, express or implied, under which he was
               authorised to occupy such premises; or
               (c) that any other person is in unauthorised occu-
               pation ~f such premises; or
               (d) that the premises are required bona fide by the
               public institution for the furtherance of its
D              activities.
               Explanation - For the purposes of this Section
               'public institution' includes any educational
               institution, library, hospital and charitable
               dispensary. 11

E   The Rent Control authorities and the High Court found that the
    application caioo 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
F   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
G   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       y
H
                   SUDHAN SINGH v. UNIVERSITY [KHALID, J,]         135


      activities of the University are ·restricted to what takes         A
),
      place within the University and providing accommodation for
      its employees will not come within that concept. We have no
      hesitation to reject this contention. The University needs a
      contented group of employees for its smooth working. Residen-
      tial accommodation for the employees of the University is one      B
      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         c
       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     D
       and the petitioners was correct. The appeals and the special
       leave petitions are accordingly dismissed, but .in the circum-
       stances of the case, without costs. The appellants are given
       three months time to surrender vacant possession of the build-
       ing in their possession on each of them filing the usual
                                                                         E
       undertaking within three weeks from today.




      A.P.J.                         Appeals and Petitions dismissed.