A trustee cannot delegate his office or any of his duties to a co-trustee or to a stranger unless the instrument of trust so provides, or the delegation is in regular course of business or the delegation is necessary, or the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation.

Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - SECTION 19(1)(D) - BOMBAY TENANCY AGRICULTURAL LANDS (VIDARBHA REGION) ACT, 1958 - APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION - MAINTAINABILITY - DELEGATION OF TRUSTEE'S DUTIES - INDIAN TRUST ACT, SECTIONS 47 AND 48 - SUB-TENANT'S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE EVICTION ORDER - KARAM SINGH SOSTI V. SRI PRATAP CHAND - NANALAL GIRDHARLAL V. GULAMNABI JAMALBHAI MOTORWALA - SUMMARY: The Bombay High Court held that an application for possession under section 19(1)(d) of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, filed by one of the trustees of a public trust without joining the other co-trustees, was not maintainable. The court relied on sections 47 and 48 of the Indian Trust Act, which prohibit co-trustees from acting singly and require all trustees to join in the execution of the trust. The court also held that a sub-tenant has the right to challenge an eviction order passed against him, even if the tenant-in-chief has not challenged the order.
Fact of the Case:

Sarda Education Trust, a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, owned agricultural land leased to Sitaram Lokhe. After Sitaram's death, the Trust served a notice to quit on his legal heir, Prakash, and the present petitioner, a sub-tenant. The Trust filed an application for possession under section 19(1)(d) of the Tenancy Act against Prakash and the petitioner before the Tahsildar, who ordered possession in favor of the Trust. The petitioner appealed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which also dismissed the application. The petitioner challenged the orders in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the application for possession filed by the Trust through one of the trustees was not maintainable, as it was not joined by the other co-trustees. The court also held that the petitioner, as a sub-tenant, had the right to challenge the eviction order passed against him, even though the tenant-in-chief had not challenged the order.
Issues: 1. Whether an application for possession under section 19(1)(d) of the Tenancy Act filed by one of the trustees of a public trust without joining the other co-trustees was maintainable. 2. Whether a sub-tenant has the right to challenge an eviction order passed against him, even if the tenant-in-chief has not challenged the order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that an application for possession under section 19(1)(d) of the Tenancy Act filed by one of the trustees of a public trust without joining the other co-trustees was not maintainable, relying on sections 47 and 48 of the Indian Trust Act, which prohibit co-trustees from acting singly and require all trustees to join in the execution of the trust. 2. The court held that a sub-tenant has the right to challenge an eviction order passed against him, even if the tenant-in-chief has not challenged the order, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Karam Singh Sobti v. Sri Pratap Chand.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the Sub-Divisional Officer, and the Tahsildar, and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to decide the application filed by the Trust afresh in accordance with law.

JUDGEMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---The orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur on 20-7-1989 and 30-9-1988 affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daryapur on 20-2-1987 and the order passed by the Tahsildar, Anjangaon on 31-1-1986 are impugned in the present writ petition.

2. Two points arise for consideration in this writ petition, viz. (i) whether the application filed by one of the trustees of Sarda Education Trust under section 19(1)(d) of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Tenancy Act') was maintainable having not been filed by all the trustees of the said Trust, and (ii) whether the petitioner who was only a sub-tenant in the land in question, could maintain revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar when the tenant-in-chief did not challenge the orders in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

3. Sarda Education Trust is a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trust'). The said Trust has six trustees and it owns agricultural lands including Survey No. 19/1 admeasuring 4 acres situated at village Wadali, Tahsil Anjangaon, District Amaravati. The said agricultural land bearing Survey No. 19/1 admeasuring 4 acres was leased out by the Trust to Sitaram Lokhe (since deceased and now represented by the respondent No. 2 Prakash). Sitaram Lokhe died on 10-8-1979. In view of the sub-tenancy created by original tenant Sitaram in favour of present petitioner, the Secretary of Trust determined tenancy by serving a notice upon Prakash s/o Sitaram Lokhe, legal heir of original tenant-in-chief Sitaram and notice was also given to the present petitioner treating him as sub-tenant. An application dated 1-10-1983 under section 19(1)(d) of the Tenancy Act was made by the Trust through its Secretary against Prakash and the present petitioner sub-tenant before the Tahsildar, Anjangaon praying for possession of the disputed land from them. The application was contested by Prakash as well as by present petitioner and the Tahsildar by the order dated 31-1-1986 held that the Trust was entitled to possession of land in question and accordingly directed issuance of warrant of possession of the disputed land in accordance with law. An appeal came to be filed by the present petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar on 31-1-1986 and the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal. Present petitioner filed revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Before the Tribunal one of the grounds urged by the petitioner was that the application under section 19(1)(d) made by Secretary of the Trust was not tenable since all the trustees had not made such application. It appears, before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the Trust placed on record a resolution dated 25-12-1984 authorising Secretary to initiate litigation for recovery of possession of the Trust's agricultural land leased out to tenants. The Tribunal by the order dated 30-9-1988 dismissed the revision application. Review application was filed by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for review of the order dated 30-9-1988 and the said review application was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 20-7-1989. The aforesaid orders are being impugned in the present writ petition.

4. The second question which requires to be decided, may be considered first, because Mr. B.N. Mohta, the learned Counsel for Trust has raised the objection that the concurrent orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of the Trust and against the tenant-in-chief were not challenged by the tenant-in-chief in revision application and, therefore, it was not open to the sub-tenant to challenge the order of possession passed by the Tahsildar on 31-1-1986 and affirmed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 20th O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis