D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is landlords revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff is registered trust having managing trustees. One Shivben was the owner of the suit premises. She executed registered Gift Deed on 11-8-1972 creating a trust in favour of the plaintiff. The gift was accepted. Deceased Fakirmohmed was the tenant in the disputed premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 8/ -. Rent was paid till 4-4- 1973 to the previous owner. Since 5-4-1973 the rent was not paid to the plaintiff in spite of repeated demand. Consequently, notice dated 18-3-1977 demanding rent amounting to Rs. 376/- was served and tenancy was determined. More than six months the rent remained due which was not paid after service of notice of demand nor any reply was given. Accordingly, the suit for eviction was filed and for arrears of rent and mesne profit.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff trust and the defendant and the plaintiff was not landlord of the defendant. Validity of Gift Deed was also challenged. It was also pleaded that the rent was paid to the previous owner and after her death to his heirs and no rent is due from him. It was also pleaded that Rs. 3000/- were given to the previous owner which was agreed to be adjusted towards rent. Notice was also said to be illegal.

( 4 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred. The appellate court found that no doubt the trust was a registered trust and owner of the suit property, but since it was not established by the plaintiff that the plaint was signed by all the trustees and notice of demand and eviction was also given on behalf of all the trustees, the plaintiff trust was not entitled to decree for eviction. Accordingly, the Appeal was also dismissed. Hence this revision.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist contended that the findings of the lower appellate Court that the plaint was not signed by all the trustees is incorrect so also the finding that the notice was not given on behalf of all the trustees. His contention has been that the trustees had been changing from time to time and since there was no defence raised in the written statement that the plaint was not signed by all the trustees and the notice was also not given on behalf of all the trustees the plaintiff was prevented from adducing proper evidence on the point. It was further contended that no cross-examination was directed to the plaintiffs witness on this points.

( 6 ) AS against this learned Counsel for the respondent, placing reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Atmaram Ranchhodbhai v. Gulamhusein gulam Mohiyuddin, reported in 1972 GLR 328 (FB) contended that in a suit like this where the trust filed a suit for recovery of possession of the disputed premises from the tenant all the managing trustees should have signed the plaint and the notice should have been given on their behalf and in case the notice was given by them it should have been signed by all of them. On the strength of this Full Bench pronouncement he contended that the decree against the respondent for eviction could not be passed and as such the revision deserve to be dismissed.

( 7 ) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the submission raised by the two sides and also to the law laid down by the Full Bench in the aforesaid atmarams case (supra) it seems that the lower appellate Court has given findings on mere presumptions and surmises and also to some extent due to failure of the trust to clarify as to who were the trustees on the date the notice of demand and eviction was given and also on the date when the suit was filed.

( 8 ) THE Full Bench pronouncement of this Court in Atmarams case (supra) essentially laid down that in case of a public charitable trust or private trust a trustee cannot delegate any of his duties, functions and powers to the co- trustee or to any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document