Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants of a shop block admeasuring 700 sq. ft. belonging to respondent no.1 Public Trust, challenged concurrent eviction decrees passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur (Regular Civil Suit No. 238/2005, dated 07.12.2009) and the District Court, Nagpur (Regular Civil Appeal No. 11/2010, dated 23.07.2010). The trust sought eviction to construct a temple and community hall on the plot. The petitioners argued that the suit was not maintainable because the resolution authorizing trustee Bhushan Jain to file the suit was not proved—only a photostat copy was produced without original or leave for secondary evidence, and all trustees were not joined. The High Court held that while the resolution was not proved, the suit is maintainable because the trust itself is the plaintiff and the trustee is merely a representative; non-joinder of all trustees does not invalidate the suit. On merits, the court found that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the trust's bona fide need and the tenants' failure to prove greater hardship were based on evidence and not perverse. The petition under Articles 226 and 227 was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Trust Law - Maintainability of Suit - Authority to Sue - Resolution - Proof - Suit filed by a Public Trust through one trustee - Resolution authorizing filing produced as photostat copy without proving original or seeking leave to lead secondary evidence - Held that the resolution was not proved as required by law, but the suit is still maintainable as the trust is the plaintiff and the trustee is only a representative; non-joinder of all trustees does not render suit bad (Paras 3-5).
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Need - Landlord's Need for Temple and Community Hall - Tenant's Challenge - Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and appellate court that landlord's need is bona fide and genuine - Held that such findings are not perverse and cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction (Paras 6-8).
C) Rent Control - Eviction - Comparative Hardship - Tenant's Failure to Prove Greater Hardship - Tenant did not establish that greater hardship would be caused to them compared to landlord - Held that the courts below correctly decided the issue against the tenant (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the Public Trust through one trustee was maintainable without proof of resolution authorizing the filing, and whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship are perverse or warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent eviction decrees. The court held that the suit is maintainable despite the resolution not being proved, as the trust is the plaintiff and the trustee is a representative. The concurrent findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship were not perverse and did not warrant interference.
Law Points
- Maintainability of suit by trust
- proof of resolution authorizing filing
- bona fide need of landlord
- comparative hardship
- concurrent findings in writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (01) 85
Writ Petition No. 4590 of 2010
Mr. A.M. Gordey, Senior Advocate with Mrs. R.D. Raskar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. K.G. Sarda, Advocate for Respondent no.1
M/s. Mohanlal Kisanlal Agrawal, Kisanlal s/o Sadiram Agrawal, Rameshwarlal s/o Sadiram Agrawal
Shri Ajitnath Jain Shetambar Mandir Trust through its Trustee Shri Bhushan Mangilal Jain, The Hon'ble District Court, Nagpur, The Hon'ble Small Causes Court, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Eviction suit filed by a Public Trust against its tenants for bona fide need to construct a temple and community hall.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners/tenants sought to quash concurrent eviction decrees passed by the trial court and appellate court.
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged the maintainability of the suit on grounds of non-joinder of trustees and lack of proof of resolution authorizing the suit, and also disputed the bona fide need and comparative hardship findings.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (Small Causes Court, Nagpur) decreed eviction on 07.12.2009 in RCS No. 238/2005; Appellate Court (District Court, Nagpur) dismissed appeal on 23.07.2010 in RCA No. 11/2010.
Issues
Whether the suit filed by the Public Trust through one trustee is maintainable without proof of resolution authorizing the filing and without joining all trustees?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship are perverse and warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the resolution at Exh.20 authorizing the suit was not proved as it was a photostat copy without original or leave for secondary evidence, and contents/signature were not proved; hence suit not maintainable and all trustees ought to have been joined.
Respondent no.1 argued that the trust is the plaintiff and the trustee is only a representative; non-joinder of all trustees does not make the suit bad; the concurrent findings on need and hardship are based on evidence and not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi
A suit filed by a Public Trust through one trustee is maintainable even if the resolution authorizing the filing is not proved, as the trust is the plaintiff and the trustee is merely a representative; non-joinder of all trustees does not render the suit bad. Concurrent findings of fact on bona fide need and comparative hardship, if based on evidence, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants have questioned the concurrent judgments delivered by the Trial Court as also the Appellate Court granting a decree of their eviction to respondent no.1 – Public Trust.
Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the resolution at Exh.20 on the basis of which the signatory to plaint Shri Bhushan Jain claimed authority to institute and file suit has not been proved, as required by law.
Procedural History
The Public Trust filed Regular Civil Suit No. 238/2005 in the Small Causes Court, Nagpur for eviction of tenants. The suit was decreed on 07.12.2009. The tenants appealed to the District Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11/2010, which was dismissed on 23.07.2010. The tenants then filed the present Writ Petition No. 4590 of 2010 in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 05.01.2011.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Indian Partnership Act, 1932:
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999:
