Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard in the revised list. He was directed to give a written submission and also inform Sri N.C. Rajvanshi Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.K. Rajvanshi, the counsel appearing for respondents.

2. Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate, has filed his written submission on 14.9.2009 along with original letter duly served upon Sri M.K. Rajvanshi junior to Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, the counsel for respondents on 11.9.2009 itself. No written submission on behalf of respondents has been filed so far.

3. The judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Saharanpur, confirming the judgment and order dated 20.3.2001 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Saharanpur, is impugned in the instant writ petition.

4. Plaintiff/petitioners claimed to be landlord of premises in dispute and plaintiff No. 1 is a religious institution within the meaning of Section 3 (S) and also public charitable institution within the meaning of Section 3 (r) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

5. Suit was instituted on behalf of Shri 1008 Murti Bhagwan Mahavir Swamiji Maharaj, which is admitted to be a Jain Temple. Respondent is a tenant of part of the entire premises owned by Shri 1008 Murti Bhagwan Mahavir Swamiji Maharaj. A notice dated 8/10.7.1995 under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act was served upon respondent-tenant late Komal Prasad Jain terminating his tenancy. It was clearly stated that building is exempted from the Act also in view of provision of Section 2 (bb) of Amended Act No. 5 of 1995. Notice was given in the name of Secretary and Treasurer late Beni Prasad Jain. Notice was replied, the tenanted accommodation being a public religious institution and thereby exemption from the Act was denied. It was also specifically denied that there is any default of payment of rent and also demand of mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day.

6. Subsequently SCC Suit No. 111 of 1995 was instituted. Defendant/respondents appeared and filed written statement and also denied relationship of landlord and tenant. Authority of late Beni Prasad was also disputed. Respondents claimed that plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and tenancy cannot be terminated by means of notice. It was also alleged that property is not registered as a “Religious institution”, therefore, no benefit of Section 2 (bb) of the Act can be availed by the petitioners.

7. A number of issues were framed. Issue No. 1 relates to a question whether there was landlord and tenant relationship in existence between plaintiffs and defendants. This question was decided in affirmative. The Judge Small Causes Court was of the considered view that relationship between plaintiffs and defendants is that of landlord and tenant. However, issue No. 3 which relates to a question whether Beni Prasad was authorized to collect rent and institute a suit on behalf of plaintiffs or not, was decided against plaintiffs and since authority of Beni Prasad was negated consequently termination of tenancy by means of notice sent on direction of Beni Prasad was held to be invalid. There was no issue in dispute regarding service of notice to the respondents. In fact, it was admitted by defendants that they have also sent reply notice disputing assertion made in the notice. Next issue was on the question whether plaintiff was religious and charitable institution and applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972.

8. The Court below was of the view that no such document has been brought on record to substantiate and establish that there was any trust deed, therefore, the Judge Small Causes Court recorded finding that provision of Section 2 (1) (bb) is not attracted. Suit was consequently dismissed after deciding the aforesaid issues against plaintiffs. Revisional Court confirmed judgment and order of the Judge Small Causes Court in SCC Revision