ARYA SAMAJ Vs. SAT PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, in R.C.A. 872/84. Appellant Arya Samaj which is a public charitable institution filed an eviction proceeding under clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act and Section 22(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The said sub-section reads :-

(2.) The respondent was employed as a 'Purohit' by the appellant in terms of the rules and conditions of Arya Samaj as laid down in their meeting on 14.11.1965. The duty of the respondent was to attend to the religious ceremonies and rituals performed by the Arya Samajis in the Arya Samaj Building, Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Since the Purohit was required to be present for all the 24 hours in the premises, he was given an accommodation of two rooms and a bathroom on the ground floor of the said building. The monthly emoluments of the respondent was fixed at Rs. 140/-. According to the appellant no separate charge or fee was collected from the respondent for the occupation of the said premises as it was a part of the amenities provided to the respondent for rendering the said services to the members of Arya Samaj. The petitioner was asked to vacate the suit premises by a notice dated 6.9.1978 as his services stood terminated from 1.4.1978. In the proforma for the eviction petition against column 3(a) viz., name and address of the landlord, the name of Arya Samaj was mentioned. In column 3(b) viz. the name and address of the tenant/tenants it was written "respondent as mentioned in the title above." In the cause title of the petition, the respondent's name was shown as Shri Sat Prakash, Ex-Purohit. However, in the parenthesis, the following words were written, 'the respondent was an employee and not tenant'. Against column 11, viz. monthly rent together with details of house tax, electricity, water and other charges paid by the tenant, it was stated, 'free of charge as the respondent was an employee of Arya Samaj, the petitioner.' As against column 14, viz.' date on which the premises were let out to the tenant and details of agreement with the landlord, if any, it was stated, 'premises were given to the respondent under the employment of Arya Samaj, the petitioner, as per the rules and conditions laid down on 14.11.1965'. In regard to column 18(a), viz., the ground on which the eviction of the tenant sought, it was stated, 'the petitioner is a charitable public institution and is the owner/landlord of the premises. The premises were given to the respondent for use by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and the respondent has ceased to be in service or employment of the petitioner as his services were terminated with effect from 1.4.1978 and that the petitioner/landlord requires the premises for use of his employee (newly appointed Purohit) and in furtherance of its charitable activities'. The notice for eviction was issued on 6.9.1978 and the same was duly acknowledged by the respondent. As against column 19, meant for giving additional information, it was stated 'that the petitioner is a charitable public institution, engaged in charitable activities for the welfare of the public. The services of the respondent were terminated as Purohit of the petitioner, and new appointment has been made.' As against the column 20, the relief column, it was stated "that the landlord/petitioner be placed in vacant possession of premises under the wrongful possession of the respondent, by vacating the respondent and every other person who may be in occupation thereof from the suit premises."

(3.) The respondent in his written statement admitted that he was an employee of the Arya Samaj. He did not challenge the termination of his services by the appellant. He, however, claimed that the premises were let out to the respondent as an ordinary tenant and the letting out had no connection with his employment with the petitioner. He further stated that it was agreed in writing by the petitioner that the respondent would be treated as an ordinary tenant even when his employment with the petitioner came to an end. The premises were let out to the respondent on 1.10.1965 as ordinary tenant and not by virtue of his employment with the petitioner. He then asserted that there was a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the appellant commencing from 1.10.1965. He further stated that his salary was Rs. 165/- per month. Rs. 25/- out of the consolidated salary of Rs. 165/- were to be deducted towards rent for the accommodation provided to the respondent and he was to be paid a net salary of Rs. 140/- per month. In their replication the appellant stated that the document dated 1.10.1965 on which the respondent had based his claim was forged and even dated letter issued by one Mr. Jugal Kishore unauthorisedly. It was also stated that a criminal complaint was filed against the respondent in regard to the said forged letter. It was then stated that the premises were never given on rent but were given on 14.11.1965 only in lieu of the services for his use as residence as Purohit during the term of the employment. It was asserted that in response to an advertisement the respondent had applied and was appointed on a salary of Rs. 140/- per month only. It was then stated that the respondent was not a tenant. The trial Court found that there was no rent receipt or rent note produced by the respondent from which it can be held that he was an ordinary tenant. As regards the letter dated 1.10.1965, written by Shri Jugal Kishore, the Court found that he was not the office bearer of the Appellant. Moreover, the said letter was not proved according to law. Respondent has admitted receipt, Ex. AW. 1/4 for Rs. 79.33 which is a receipt for payment of Rs. 79.33 as salary from 14.11.1965 to 30.11.1965. There are other receipts to show that the salary was Rs. 140/- per month Ex. AW. 1/3 are the extracts of the proceedings of the meetings appointing the respondent. They are duly proved by the appellant. The minutes show that the respondent was appointed from 14.11.1965. On these findings the trial Court granted the decree for eviction under Section 14(1)(i) read with Section 22(a) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order on the ground that no cause of action was disclosed by the appellant in the eviction petition. He looked at the petition and held that the landlord-tenant relationship is not averred by the appellant. Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was pressed in service.