A de-facto trustee or a person in de-facto management of a trust has sufficient locus to file a suit or institute proceedings against a trespasser or against a person claiming interest adverse to the trust for the purpose of claiming relief which will enure to the benefit of the trust.

JUDGMENT-The present case is a shining illustration of the stupefying manner in which a dishonest defendant, who now admits himself to be a rank trespasser on the premises initially allowed to be occupied by him as a matter of charity has persuaded the Courts to get enmeshed in procedural wrangles and to defeat just right of the plaintiffs.

2. The petitioners before me are the trustees of the Seth Khattau Morarji and others trust. This trust is the owner of building Narayan Niwas situate at Dadyseth Agiary Lane, Bombay. Two rooms on the 3rd floor of the said building are in the occupation of the present respondent. The said premises were given for occupation to the respondent by the 6 trustees of the trust in the year 1957. It is common ground before me that initially a rent of 50 p. per room was charged by the trustees to the respondent for occupation of the rooms but the trustees stopped charging even this negligible, nominal rent from the year 1960. Mr. Soochak appearing for the respondent has informed me that till the year 1960 the respondent was in the part time employment of the trust and that his grievance is that he was receiving only Rs. 15 as salary. However, he himself admitted on behalf of his client that he left the employment in the year 1960 in which year he also stopped paying the negligible amount of rent of Re. 1 in connection with the two rooms. For the sake of convenience the premises occupied by the respondent shall be referred to hereinafter as 'the suit premises.

3. It may be mentioned here that under the Trust Deed executed by the original settlor Shri Purshottam Shamji the four sons of the settlor were the original trustees of the said trust. Under the Trust Deed, it is provided that the Trust should have minimum three trustees. There is another provision in the trust Deed for the appointment of the trustees after the death, retirement or refusal to function by the trustees in question. It is not in dispute that in the year 1966 two of the original trustees ceased to be trustees because of the death of one and because of the retirement of the other. The number of continuing trustees was thus reduced to two. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 were the continuing trustees. Under the Trust Deed the power of appointment of trustees is given to the trust and in the exercise of that power, the trustees appointed petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 as additional trustees. The Deed of Appointment in that behalf was executed on 15th February 1966 and it was lodged for registration with the Registrar of' Assurances in the year 1967. For some reason or the other the registration was not complete till the year 1979. All the six trustees, however, managed the trust property. It is to be noted that this Trust is registered under the Public Trusts Act. Really speaking, the change in the constitution of the board of trustees should have been intimated to the Charity Commissioner by the Trustees immediately and the requisite approval of the Charity Commissioner should have been obtained. This legal requirement was presumably not complied with by the petitioners for some time although they were acting as trustees from the date of their appointment.

4. In the year 1972 petitioners trustees got information that the respondent who was occupying the suit premises without payment of a single farthing had already acquired alternate accommodation at Kandivli and that having regard to the object of the Trust, be had no justification to continue in the suit premises. Hence a notice dated 8-2-1972 was given by the trustees through their advocate revoking the respondent's license to continue with the occupation of the premises. No reply was given by the respondent to this notice. In the notice it was specifically stated that the respondent had acquired alternate accommodation at Kandivli and he was, in fact, living there. This fact was nowhere denied by the respondent. In these circumstances, the petitioners trustees filed an ejectment applicati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document