SUDHAN SINGH AND ORS. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 14-01-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 acconnnoda-
tion 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 appli-
cations 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 expres-
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. 
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 dis-
closes 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 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 
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 peti-
tions 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 appli-
cations were resisted by the tenants on various grounds. The 
Additional Rent Controiler, Delhi, The Rent Control 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.