Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • R.L Anand, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • R.L Anand, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Decision — Rent Revision (Gurbax Singh)

Factual and Procedural Background

This proceeding concerns a rent revision arising from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala dated 28.5.1998 under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller had allowed a petition filed by Gurbax Singh (the landlord), who claimed to be a "specified landlord", and ordered the tenants (Sant Singh, Jaspal Singh and Smt. Narinder Kaur) to deliver vacant possession of a residential house (Municipal No. 3038/1, Anardana Chowk, Patiala) within three months.

The landlord filed a revision in 1998 before the High Court. On 30.10.2001 the High Court dismissed that revision summarily and granted the tenants six months to vacate. The tenants appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 23.9.2002 set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of whether the petitioner fell within the statutory definition of "specified landlord" under Section 2(hh) of the Act. The Supreme Court expressly remanded the matter for deeper consideration and asked the High Court to decide expeditiously.

The factual background as pleaded by the landlord: the premises were initially rented (rent deed dated 17.6.1971) by Smt. Joginder Kaur from Smt. Saraswati Devi at Rs.20/month; Saraswati Devi died in 1976 and the current petitioner claimed succession. The tenants (occupiers) are descendants of the original tenant. The landlord asserted arrears from 1.1.1993 but did not claim them in the present petition, reserving the right to claim separately. The petitioner also alleged he had retired on 30.4.1996 as a teacher from Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, New Delhi, which was recognised and aided by the Delhi Administration and governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973; he relied on this employment status to claim the benefit of "specified landlord" under Section 2(hh).

The respondents denied (among other things) that the petitioner was the owner, alleged non-joinder and false probate, asserted that rent had been paid to another Gurbax Singh (son of Jai Ram Singh), and contested the authenticity and effect of the alleged 1971 rent note.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner (Gurbax Singh) is a "specified landlord" within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and thus entitled to seek immediate possession under Section 13-A of the Act (this was the principal point remanded by the Supreme Court).
  2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for ejectment against the respondents on the grounds mentioned in the petition (as framed by the Rent Controller).
  3. Whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and the respondents.
  4. Whether the petition is maintainable.
  5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
  6. Reliefs appropriate to the parties.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (Landlord)

  • The petitioner asserted he worked as a teacher at Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, New Delhi, and retired on 30.4.1996 (certificate Ex. A18).
  • The school was said to be recognised and aided by the Delhi Administration and governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973; therefore the petitioner claimed to have held an appointment in public service or a post connected with affairs of the Union or State and to qualify as a "specified landlord" under Section 2(hh).
  • On that basis the petitioner sought ejectment and stated he wished to settle in Patiala and had no other accommodation there.
  • The petitioner relied upon earlier decisions (Punjab & Haryana High Court decisions) holding comparable office-holders to be "specified landlords" (examples cited by petitioner counsel included Shri Fateh Chand Verma and Girwar Lal).

Respondents' Arguments (Tenants / Occupiers)

  • Denied existence of landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner and contended the property belonged to another Gurbax Singh (son of Jai Ram Singh) to whom they had been paying rent.
  • Pressed pleas of non-joinder of necessary parties and alleged false probate obtained by concealment of facts.
  • Challenged authenticity/effect of the 1971 rent deed, alleging the signature of Smt. Joginder Kaur was obtained by fraud and that she never paid rent to Saraswati Devi.
  • Contended that the petitioner retired from a private aided school and that the certificate relied upon (Ex. A18) was not signed by the competent management authority; reliance was placed on an earlier authority to assert that the certificate was not a requisite document for establishing the petitioner’s claimed status.
  • Argued that the nature of the school and the authority signing the certificate did not establish that the petitioner held a post in connection with the affairs of the Union or State.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Shri Fateh Chand Verma v. Shri Balbir Singh — 1987 (1) RCR (Rent) 385 (P&H) : 1987 (1) PLR 414 Held that a post connected with affairs of the State (appointment in New Delhi Municipal Committee) can bring a person within the definition of "specified landlord". The court relied on this authority to support the proposition that office-holders in bodies controlled by the Delhi Administration may qualify as "specified landlords".
Girwar Lal v. Khadi Bhandar Dhuri and another — 1992 (2) RCR (Rent) 514 (P&H) : 1992 (2) PLR 676 Held that an employee of a nationalised bank was a specified landlord. The court cited this decision as supportive precedent showing that employees of certain institutions may be covered by the statutory definition; it influenced the court's acceptance of analogous reasoning.
Subedar Tara Singh of Jalandhar v. Smt. Bachan Kaur & Ors — 1990 (1) RCR (Rent) 383 (P&H) : 1990 HRR 78 Addressed requirements regarding certification (signature/competent authority) for proof of employment/retirement in similar rent matters. The respondents relied on this authority to challenge the sufficiency of the petitioner's certificate; the court considered and rejected that challenge on the facts, finding the certificate acceptable in context.
Ramesh Birch v. Union of India — 1989 (2) RCR (Rent) 79 (SC) : 1988 (2) Rent Law Reporter (Pb. & Hry.) (F.B) 352 Interpreted the expression used under the Act and contrasted reading Section 2(hh) with Article 12 of the Constitution. The court referred to this authority when explaining that the statutory phrase "specified landlord" must be read differently from the concept of "State" under Article 12; it relied on it as part of the interpretive framework.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors — JT 2002 (9) SC 1 Concerns characterization of institutions under Article 12 and issues around minority education and institutional status. The petitioner relied upon this decision (and other Article 12 jurisprudence) to argue the school's non-State character; the court held these authorities dealt with Article 12 issues and were not directly determinative of the Section 2(hh) question in the present context.
Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT & others — AIR 1992 SC 76 Authorities concerning whether particular institutions qualify as "State" or instrumentalities under Article 12. Cited by petitioner counsel; the court observed these cases addressed Article 12 determinations and held that their relevance to Section 2(hh) was limited.
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh — AIR 1983 SC 2178 Concerning the role of the State in educational institutions and constitutional principles regarding education. Cited by petitioner counsel in support of an Article 12 analysis; the court again noted the distinction between Article 12 analysis and the statutory test under Section 2(hh).
Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India — AIR 1988 SC 469 Relates to characterization of institutions/organisations in the context of Article 12. Referenced by petitioner counsel; the court observed that such authorities were concerned with Article 12 issues and not directly dispositive of whether an employee of an aided school qualifies as a "specified landlord" under the Rent Act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded pursuant to the Supreme Court's remand to determine whether the petitioner falls within the definition of "specified landlord" in Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The court set out and applied the statutory language and an interpretive test drawn from the statute and prior authorities.

Statutory provision relied on: Section 2(hh) — "specified landlord" means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or State.

From this provision the court distilled two tests that must be satisfied for a claim to fall within the definition:

  1. Whether the person was/is holding a public service (i.e. an appointment in public service); and
  2. Whether that post is in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.

On the meaning of "public service" and "affairs of the Union or State", the court explained that imparting education is a public service whether performed by public, aided or private institutions; however the second test requires a demonstrable connection between the post/institution and the affairs of the Union or State — for example where an institution is controlled by the Union or State or established by statute and its activities are linked with State affairs.

The court examined the facts: the petitioner had been a teacher at Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, New Delhi; the school was recognised and aided by the Delhi Administration and governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which was enacted by Parliament and which, by reason of the constitutional status of Delhi (including appointment of an Administrator under Article 239), gave the Administrator regulatory control over such schools. The petitioner had produced a certificate (signed by the headmaster and chairman) of retirement.

The court considered the respondents' contention that the school was a private institution and that the certificate was not competent evidence. The court rejected that contention on the facts, holding that the school was not a purely private institution because its activities were controlled by the Delhi Administration under the statutory scheme (Delhi School Education Act, 1973) and an Administrator appointed under Article 239. The court therefore concluded the petitioner had held an appointment in a public service and that the post bore a connection with the affairs of the Union/State.

The court also distinguished authorities cited by petitioner counsel (which addressed Article 12 and whether an institution is a "State" or instrumentality thereof) by stressing that Article 12 analysis serves a different purpose and that the statutory test in Section 2(hh) is to be read and applied differently.

Applying the tests and the factual findings (including the Rent Controller's earlier findings that the petitioner was a specified landlord and that landlord-tenant relationship and bona fide need were proved), the court affirmed that Issue No.1 was rightly decided in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner qualified as a "specified landlord".

Holding and Implications

Holding: The High Court concluded that the petitioner is a "specified landlord" within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, and therefore the revision filed by the tenants is without merit. The court dismissed the revision.

Implications / direct effect:

  • The revision is dismissed and the Rent Controller's order in favour of the landlord (for ejectment/delivery of possession) is upheld as to the principal issue addressed on remand.
  • The tenants were given one month to vacate the demised premises; failing which the landlord is at liberty to pursue execution proceedings to obtain possession.
  • No broader or novel precedent was announced beyond the court's application of Section 2(hh) to the facts of a teacher in a school recognised and aided by the Delhi Administration and governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The opinion confined itself to statutory interpretation and application to the case facts rather than establishing a new doctrinal rule beyond that application.

Revision dismissed.

Show full summary ...

    Jaspal Singh Petitioner v. Gurbax Singh And Anr. S

    R.L Anand, J. — This is a rent revision filed by the tenant and it has been directed against the order dated 28.5.1998 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala, who allowed the petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act), of Gurbax Singh, who claimed himself to be a specified landlord and the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant who was directed to deliver the vacant possession of the house in dispute to the landlord within three months from the date of the passing of the order.

    2. The landlord filed the present revision in the year 1998 against the impugned order of the Rent Controller and it came up for hearing before me on 30.10.2001 It was disposed of with a short order by making a mention that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any merit in this revision. Six-month time was granted to the tenant to vacate the demised premises. The tenant was not satisfied with the order of the High Court and he went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide order dated 23.9.2002 were pleased to set aside the order of the High Court and passed the following order :—

    “On a petition filed by the respondent under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. the order of the eviction has been passed against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. Section 13-A deals with right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to specified landlord. The expression “specified landlord” has been defined in Section 2(hh) of the aforesaid Act. One of the important questions to be considered is whether the respondent comes within the definition of specified landlord and would be entitled to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act. In the present case, the question is whether an employee of a private aided school would come within the said definition or not. The High Court when approached by the appellants-tenants rejected the revision petition by merely observing that there is not merit in the revision petition. The aforesaid point, in particular, required deeper consideration by the High Court. We, however, express no opinion on the said point one way or the other, since we are remanding the case to the High Court for fresh decision.

    In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. We would, however, request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of four months. The parties shall appear before the Registrar of the High Court on 4th October, 2002.”

    3. In pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present order vide which the main revision is being disposed of.

    4. Petitioner Gurbax Singh sought an ejectment order against Sant Singh, Jaspal Singh and Smt. Narinder Kaur from the residential house bearing Municipal No. 3038/1, situated in Anardana Chowk, Patiala on the plea that Smt. Joginder Kaur wife of respondent No. 1, mother of respondent No. 2 and mother-in-law of respondent No. 3 took on rent the demised premises from the mother of the petitioner Smt. Saraswati Devi on a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- on 17.6.1971 The rent deed to this effect was also executed by Smt. Joginder Kaur in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi on the same date. Said Saraswati Devi expired on 27.6.1976 and the property has been succeeded by the petitioner. Smt Joginder Kaur also expired leaving behind Sant Singh, her husband, respondent No. 1 Jaspal Singh, son, respondent No. 2 and Manmohan Singh, her second son. Manmohan Singh also expired before filing the present rent petition and he has left behind Smt. Narinder Kaur respondent No. 3 as his widow. Now all the three respondents are in occupation of the house in question. They are in arrears of rent since 1.1.1993, but the petitioner is not claiming the same in the present petition and has reserved his right to claim the arrears separately in accordance with law.

    5. Here the case of the petitioner starts for the disposal of the present revision. The petitioner maintained in the petition under Section 13-A of the Act that he was working as a teacher in Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, Dev Nagar, New Delhi-5 and he had retired as such on 30.4.1996 Said school was recognised and aided by Delhi administration and is governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and as such he was a specified landlord. He wanted to settle at Patiala. He does not own or possess any such accommodation in the local area of Patiala and has not vacated any such building. Therefore, directions be given to the respondents to vacate the demised premises.

    6. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. They contested the claim of the petitioner and took preliminary stand that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner was not the owner of the property in dispute and it belongs to one Gurbax Singh son of Jai Ram Singh, resident of Shere-Punjab Market, Patiala. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the petition was not legally maintainable and was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. False probate has been obtained by the petitioner by concealments of facts from original owner and the respondents. The respondents did not pay rent to the petitioner as there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. However, they were regularly paying the rent to Gurbax Singh son of Jai Ram Singh. On merits, it was the stand of the respondents that Smt. Joginder Kaur never executed any rent note in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi and the alleged signatures had been obtained by playing fraud at the instance of her neighbours on the pretext that Smt. Saraswati Devi required some signatures to support her in getting old age pension. Smt. Joginder Kaur never accepted Smt. Saraswati Devi as her landlady nor she paid any rent to her. From the very beginning the rent was being paid to Gurbax Singh son of Jai Ram Singh and the alleged rent deed dated 17.6.1971 does not confirm the tenancy. The petitioner retired as teacher from a private aided school and he is a permanent resident of Delhi having property there and is well settled. The other averments of the rent petition were denied and it was prayed by the respondents that the rent petition may be dismissed.

    7. A rejoinder was filed by the landlord and from the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on 14.8.1997 :—

    “1. Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord as alleged? OPA

    2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree for ejectment against the respondent on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPA

    3. Whether there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties as alleged? OPA

    4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

    5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

    6. Relief.”

    8. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the petitioner and it was held that he was a specified landlord. Issues No. 2 and 3 were also decided in favour of the petitioner holding that it has been proved by the petitioner that he is a specified landlord and his need was bona fide. The relationship of landlord and tenant existed. Issues No. 4 and 5 were decided against the tenants and finally vide order dated 29.5.1988 the learned Rent Controller, Patiala allowed the rent petition and ordered for the delivery of the possession of the demised premises within three months from the date of the passing of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision which was disposed of at one stage by this Court on 30.10.2001 but that order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which gave the directions to this Court to re-determine the issue as to whether the case of the petitioner falls with in the expression “specified landlord” as defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether an employee of a private aided school would come within the said definition or not.

    9. In compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court I am disposing of this revision. Before I proceed further into the matter, it would be proper for me to incorporate the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No. 1 which have been contained in paras 8 and 9 of the order and the same are reproduced as follows :—

    “Issue No. 1

    8. To prove that the petitioner is a specified landlord AW8 Gurbax Singh stated that he was born in Pakistan and migrated to India and settled at Patiala. He had done his schooling at Patiala and after completing his B.A got the job at Delhi from where he had retired. After retirement he wanted to settle at Patiala. AW6, Tarlochan Singh, who knew the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has studied at Patiala, who has since retired from his job at Delhi. So is the statement of AW5 Mohinder Singh, nephew of the petitioner, according to whom the petitioner was working as teacher, who has since retired. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Teacher in Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, New Delhi and has retired on 30.4.1996, vide certificate Ex. A18. The said school of the petitioner is a recognised and aided by Delhi Administration and is governed by Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The said Act was enacted by pronouncement in the 244th amendment of Constitution of India to provide better organisation and development of school education in the Union Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith or accidental charges thereof or the Administrator appointed by the President, Govt. Of India under Art. 239 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the Administrator regulates education and service conditions in accordance with rules made thereunder, besides regulating the service condition of the employees of recognised private schools. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1987 (1) RCR (Rent) 385 (P&H) : 1987 (1) PLR 414 decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Shri Fateh Chand Verma v. Shri Balbir Singh, wherein the landlord had held the appointment in the New Delhi Municipal Committee, a post connected with the affairs of the State controlled by the Delhi Administration, Delhi headed by Lt. Governor. Landlord was covered by the definition of specified landlord. On the same score the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1992 (2) RCR (Rent) 514 (P&H) : 1992 (2) PLR 676 decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Girwar Lal v. Khadi Bhandar Dhuri and another, wherein an employee of the nationalised bank was held to be specified landlord.

    9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that private aided school cannot be said to be established under the Education Act. Moreover, the certificate Ex. A18 is only signed by the principal of the school, besides the Chairman, but has not been signed by the management of the committee. Thus, the certificate produced by the petitioner is not a requisite certificate from the concerned authority indicating the date of retirement of the petitioner from the service in view of the provisions of 1990 (1) RCR (Rent) 383 (P&H): 1990 HRR 78, decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case Subedar Tara Singh of Jalandhar v. Smt. Bachan Kaur & Ors. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent does not seem to be plausible as is proved, Where-from the petitioner has retired is controlled by Delhi School Education Act, 1973 enacted by the Parliament of India. The Administrator is also appointed by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a specified landlord as defined under Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Posts in connection with the affairs of the State held by the employee in New Delhi Municipal Committee is also covered under the definition of specified landlord as per 1987 (1) PLR 414 (supra) and a Bank employee of the Nationalised Bank is also a specified landlord as held in 1992 (2) PLR 676 (supra). The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent as per 1990 HRR 78 (supra) is wrong that the certificate of the petitioner has been signed by the Head-master and the Chairman of the school, recognised and aided by the Delhi Administration, governed by Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The school of the petitioner is not a private school, which is established under the Education Act, so it is held that the petitioner is a specified landlord as defined under Sec. 29(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.”

    10. I have heard Mr. I.K Mehta, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Arun Palli, Advocate on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.

    Section 2(hh) of the Act lays down as follows :

    ““specified landlord” means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union of State”.

    11. The reading of the above would show that the legislature when drafted the expression “specified landlord” was well aware about the difficulties of a landlord to whom it wanted to give the benefit that he may not suffer the vagaries of the regular proceedings of the Act. The expression “specified landlord” in my opinion, would mean a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building of his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or State in the matter of recovery of possession of residential or scheduled building. In this regard a reference can be made to Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, 1989 (2) RCR (Rent) 79 (SC) : 1988 (2) Rent Law Reporter (Pb. & Hry.) (F.B) 352. This expression used under Section 2(hh) has to be read differently from Article 12 of the Constitution of India as appearing in Part-II. According to Article 12, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the State and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The expression “State” as mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution, of course, enjoys the expanding concept and would include Corporations and Bodies and other authorities and all those instrumentalities of the State or Government but the expression “State” as used in the Constitution in Article 12 has to be interpreted differently from the expression “specified landlord” as used in Section 2(hh) of the Act. In my opinion, if the following tests are complied with by a landlord who claims himself to be a specified landlord, then his case will be covered by this definition :—

    1. Whether such person was and is holding a public service?

    2. Whether his post is in connection with the affairs of the Union of State?

    12. Again I have to determine what is a public service and what are the affairs of Union or of a State. Imparting education to the citizens of this country is a public service which is undertaken by the various institutions whether in the private sector or in the public sector or in the government Sector. There are several institutions working in the private sector which cannot run of its own on account of paucity of funds and, therefore, they take the grant. There are certain educational institutions which are unaided but still they perform a public service in the shape of giving education to the children. With regard to the expression “affairs of Union or of a State” again we have to see whether the educational activities which, in my opinion, is a public service, has some connection with the affairs of the Union or the State. If a particular institution is controlled by the orders of the Union or of the State and it is established that imparting of education is also one of the affairs of the State, in such a situation a person like the petitioner can take the benefit of Section 2(hh).

    13. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta vehemently submitted that the petitioner retired from a private institution which was unaided by the Government and secondly the certificate which has been relied upon by the landlord has not been signed or issued by the competent authority, therefore, he does not fall within the expression of “specified landlord”. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon T.M.A Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., JT 2002 (9) SC 1, Chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Educational Research & Training and others, AIR 1992 SC 76, Unni Krishnan, J.P and others etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., AIR 1983 SC 2178 and Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L Basandhi v. Union of India and others, AIR 1988 SC 469.

    14. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevancy. In the cited judgments the point for determination was whether a particular institution falls within Article 12 of the Constitution or not. Whether a particular institution was a State or instrumentality of the State. In T.M.A Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra) the point in controversy was totally different and that was with regard to the minority institutions and their rights. But in the present case Mr. Palli submitted that the petitioner's case is covered by the expression “specified landlord” because he was giving a public service in the capacity of a teacher in a private institution whose actions were controlled by the New Delhi Government and which is a creation of the statute. Even to the private institutions those scales of pay were admissible as per the mandate of the enactment which were being enjoined upon by the State run institutions. Mr. Palli also submitted that the certificate in this case has been issued by a competent authority i.e Headmaster as well as by the Chairman of the school. Therefore, the revision should be dismissed.

    15. It is established on the record that the petitioner was working as a teacher in Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Senior Secondary School, New Delhi and he retired from the service on 30.4.1996, the said school was recognised and aided by Delhi Administration and was governed by Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and this Act was enacted by the pronouncement in the 244th Amendment of Constitution of India, the object of which was to provide better organisation and development, Govt. of India under Article 239 of the Constitution, Delhi and for matters connected therewith or accidental charges thereof or the Administrator appointed by the President.

    16. In this view of the matter, the ratio relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is applicable to the facts in hand. The petitioner had retired from a institution which is controlled by the Delhi Education Act, 1973 which is an Act of Parliament. An Administrator of this institution is appointed by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution. The certificate in the present case was issued by the Headmaster and the Chairman of the school which is a recognised and aided body by the Delhi Administration. The school of the Petitioner is not a private institution altogether. Its activities are being controlled by the Administrator and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was holding an appointment in a public service and post and thus had the connection with the affairs of the Union and the State Government. This point has been rightly decided by the learned Rent Controller in favour of the landlord.

    Resultantly, there is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. The tenants are given one month time to vacate the demised premises, failing which is will be open to the landlord to claim the possession by filing execution proceedings.

    Revision dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Jaspal Singh Petitioner v. Gurbax Singh And Anr. S
    (Jan 24, 2003)