Bombay High Court Heard Writ Petition Challenging Order on Locus Standi Under Section 41-D of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. Trust and Trustees Contested Tenant's Status as Person Having Interest to Maintain Application for Removal of Trustees Based on Leasehold Rights and Relationship as Grandson of Settlor.

Case Note & Summary

The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arose from an order dated 7 April 2018 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, holding that the respondent is a person having interest in the trust, thereby allowing him to maintain an application under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, for removal of trustees. The first petitioner is a public trust registered under the said Act, and the remaining petitioners are its trustees. The respondent is a lessee in respect of the entire ground floor of a building owned by the trust, admeasuring about 2800 sq. ft., and also claims to be the grandson of the settlor, Maganlal Himatram Barfiwala. The trust was originally created by the settlor in 1917 for the welfare of orphans and poor children of the Halai Lohana community, with a direction that its management be carried on by the trustees of the Shri Halai Lohana Mahajans community. By an order of the Bombay High Court in 1950 in Suit No. 1521 of 1949, the trust's income was to be utilized for providing milk to poor children and expectant mothers. The trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and later under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. In 1977, the Deputy Charity Commissioner permitted the trust to collect donations. The respondent was granted a lease of the ground floor shops by the trust on 23 October 1974, for a period of 25 years with an option to renew for a further 25 years, after obtaining sanction from the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Act. A dispute over rent arose when the trust sought to increase the rent, leading the respondent to file an application for fixation of standard rent before the Small Causes Court. The standard rent was fixed at Rs. 1,000 per month, and excess deposit was directed to be refunded. The trust filed an eviction suit, which was later withdrawn after the respondent succeeded in the rent fixation proceedings. The respondent was paid the decreetal amount in 2003 after an execution application. The respondent sought renewal of the lease in 1999, and after protracted correspondence, a renewal lease deed was executed on 10 August 2007, but with effect from October 1999, which the respondent claimed was under coercion and caused loss of eight years' income. The trust later filed a fresh eviction suit and a termination notice. In October 2017, the respondent filed Application No. 537 of 2017 under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act before the Joint Charity Commissioner, seeking permanent removal of the trustees and other reliefs. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection (Exhibit 14) contending that the respondent lacked locus standi as he was not a person having interest in the trust. By the impugned order dated 7 April 2018, the Joint Charity Commissioner held that the respondent was a person having interest, thus allowing the application to proceed. Aggrieved, the trust and its trustees filed the present writ petition under Article 227, alleging that the finding was perverse and without jurisdiction. The High Court issued rule and, with consent of parties, heard the matter finally. Judgment was reserved on 25 January 2019 and pronounced on 27 February 2019. The court examined the definition of 'person having interest' under the Act and the factual matrix of the respondent's relationship with the trust, including his status as a lessee under a court-sanctioned lease and his familial connection to the settlor.

Issue of Consideration

Law Points