Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 901

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan - Appellants
Versus
Nand Lal & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3034 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No. 9876 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No. 9877 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No. 9878 of 2017
Decided on : 25-07-2017

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :M.R. Calla, Sr. Adv., Ankit Acharya, Gaurav Dave, Mohan Pandey, Ms. Charu Mathur, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Puneet Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Ms. Payal Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bar created under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 applies for hearing and deciding a suit and not in filing the suit. Once the trust is registered under the Act, the bar is lifted, and the court can assume jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit on merits.

Headnote:
Trust - Tenancy - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 - Section 29 - The court discussed the implications of Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which creates a bar against hearing and deciding a suit filed by an unregistered public trust. The court held that the bar applies for hearing and deciding a suit and not in filing the suit. It further emphasized that once the trust is registered under the Act, the bar is lifted, and the court can assume jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit on merits.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a public Trust, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the respondents. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, but the Appellate Court set aside the judgment, holding that the Trust was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, making the suit incompetent.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the impugned orders, and restored the civil suit to its file for deciding the suit afresh on merits in accordance with law. The court emphasized that the Trial Court was unjustified in proceeding to hear and decide the suit on merits without considering the bar created under Section 29 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was the competency of the suit filed by the unregistered public Trust under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bar under Section 29 of the Act applies for hearing and deciding a suit and not in filing the suit. Once the trust is registered under the Act, the bar is lifted, and the court can assume jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit on merits.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for hearing and deciding the suits on merits in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

IN Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2008

This appeal is filed by the Plaintiff against the final judgment and orders dated 19.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 295 of 2006 and S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 296 of 2006 whereby the High Court, by separate judgments, dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 30.11.2005 of the Additional District Judge(Fast Track) No.2, Pali (Raj.) in Civil Appeal Decree Nos.3 and 4 of 2005 whereby the appeals of the respondents (defendants) were allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pali in the Civil Suit No. 4/2004 and Civil Suit No. 5/2004 were set aside.

2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal.

3. The appellant is a public Trust of which Shri Ramanand is the Chairman. The Trust was formed by executing a Trust deed on 31.07.1980. The land measuring 1 Bigha 5 Biswas situated at Pali was allotted by the Government on 14.05.1982 in the name of Shri Rama Nand and the patta was accordingly granted to him. He then constructed shops on this land.

4. On 01.10.1985, the Shop No.7 was let out to Nand Lal-respondent No.1 on rent on an oral agreement at a monthly rent of Rs.500/- which was enhanced at Rs.625/- per month on 01.10.1996 with the consent of both parties.

5. On 01.10.1989, the Shop No.11 was let out to Nand Lal, Jitendar Rai Mathur and M/s Mayur Auto Repairs on rent on the basis of an oral agreement at a monthly rent of Rs.600/-, which was enhanced to Rs.750/- per month on 01.10.1996 with the consent of the parties. After the enhancement of rent, the respondents stopped paying the rent to the appellant-Trust. However, respondent No.1 paid rent only in respect of Shop No. 7 up to 30.06.1998.

6. On 17.10.1998, the appellant, therefore, sent a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the respondents in respect of Shop No.11 through registered post and terminated the tenancy. By virtue of notice, the respondents were informed that their tenancy would terminate w.e.f. midnight of 30.11.1998. Similarly, on 22.10.1998, the appellant sent a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act to respondent No.1 in respect of Shop No.7 through registered post and terminated the tenancy w.e.f. midnight of 30.11.1998. Respondent No.1 did not reply to this notice also.

7. Subsequently, on 23.10.1998, the respondents gave a cheque to the appellant against the rent in respect of Shop No.11 up to the month of November and damages on account of use and occupation for the month of December, 1998 and respondent No.1 gave a cheque in respect of Shop No.7 against the rent up to the month of November and damages on account of use and occupation for the month of December, 1998. However, the respondents did not hand over the possession of both the shops.

8. On 20.01.1999, the appellant instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of rent being Civil Suit No. 15/99 (re-numbered as 5/2004) against Nand Lal, Jitendar Rai Mathur and M/s Mayur Auto Repairs in respect of Shop No.11 and Civil Suit No.14/99 (re-numbered as 4/2004) against Nand Lal in respect of Shop No.7 before the Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Pali.

9. The Trial Court, after framing the issues in both the suits, by separate judgments on 27.10.2004, answered the issues in favour of the appellant and accordingly decreed the appellant's suit and ordered the respondents' eviction from the suit premises within a period of two months and pay the damages for use and occupation w.e.f. 20.11.1998 till the date of handing over the possession of the suit premises (i) at the rate of Rs.750/- per month in Civil Suit No.5/2004 and (ii) at the rate of Rs.625/- per month in Civil Suit No.4/2004.

10. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents filed separate first appeals being Civil Appeal Decree No.3/2005 and Civil Appeal De

Click Here to Read the rest of this document