SUDHAN SINGH CHAWDHARY RAM SWARUP BENI PRASAD B K KAUL JAGJIT SINGH NIRANJAN SINGH KISHAN CHAND DR B C CHATTERJEE PRITAM SINGH AJIT KUMAR GOVERDHAN LAL YOG DHIYAN RADHA KISHAN SHRIKANT VAIDRAJ RAM LAL LUTHRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:UNIVERSITY OF DELHI:U

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 respondent - the University of Delhi against its tenants, the appellants and the petitioners, under S. 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. Those 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.