# [1986] 1 S.C.R. 131

- **Citation:** [1986] 1 S.C.R. 131
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-01-14
- **Bench:** O. Chinnappa Reddy, V. Khalid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1986-1-s-c-r-131-9233
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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 acconnnodation to its employees -
Eviction petitiOn - Maintainability
of.
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
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 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 Tri_bunsl 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 tensnts 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.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19861 1 s.c.R.
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
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 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,
to provide accomllX>dation 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. '!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
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.

## Text

I
..,
131
SUDHAN SINGH AND ORS.
v •.
UNIVERSITY OF DEU!I AND ORS.
JANUARY 14, 1986
[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 acconnnodation to its employees -
Eviction petitiOn - Maintainability
of.
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
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 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 Tri_bunsl 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 tensnts 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.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19861 1 s.c.R.
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
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 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,
to provide accomllX>dation 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. '!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
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
)
)
SUDHAN SINGH v. UNIVERSITY [KHALID, J.]
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 Controiler, 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, 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
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, 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 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:
1122. Where the landlord in respect of any premtses 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,
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 1 S.C.R.
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 -
(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 ~f 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
'public
institution'
includes
institution,
library,
hospital
dispensary.
11
of this Section
any
educational
and
charitable
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
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 y
),
SUDHAN SINGH v. UNIVERSITY [KHALID, J,]
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
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.
A
B
c
D
E