Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 8.11.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A.Case No. 14 of 2000 where an application under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act (No. 13 of 1972) was allowed as well as the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father was inducted as tenant in house No. 328, Mohalla Jawahar Nagar, City Unnao and, on his death, his tenancy is inherited by the petitioner, who is an advocate. Thus, the house bearing Corporation No. 328(old) 361 (new) situated in Mohalla Jawahar Nagar City Unnao is the property in dispute. The opposite-party No. 3 (hereinafter known as landlord) wants to construct a “Dharamshala” over the land of aforesaid house as adjacent house is already available for the purpose, so an application was moved under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act for the eviction which was allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the Rent Appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order. Not being satisfied, the petitioner-tenant has filed the present writ petition.

3. With this background, Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the house in dispute is a Trust property which came into existence on the basis of a registered will dated 12.5.1938 executed by Late Lala Behari Lal in favour of Sri Biharishwar Mahadeo Ji Virajman Shivala, Sadar Bazar, Jawahar Nagar, Unnao. He submits that it is abundantly clear that so-called Trust has been established by virtue of a will and is being maintained through public money which is availed by the Trust. He submits that the said Trust is a Public Charitable Trust, so the provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act (No. 13 of 1972) are not attracted. Hence, the proceedings before the lower Courts were not valid. Therefore, the order passed by the lower Court under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act is not maintainable. According to him, the deed of the will only provides that the property in question will be utilized for temple purpose and the deed nowhere requires the house to be converted into a “Dharamshala”. For the demolition and re-construction of the house, the opposite-party No. 3 has no financial capacity. Being Public Charitable Trust, it does not fall within the purview of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972. He also submits that the respondent No. 3 is already having its Dharamshala in the other part of District Unnao and that building is utilized for commercial purposes like Guest House, Marriage Hall etc. In these circumstances, according to him, the premises in question is not to be released. The need is not bona fide but is for the purpose of multiplying the income of an individual, particularly, nothing has been shown as to how the Trust is being managed and to what extent its annual income is utilized. Again, he submits that the Trust is for public purpose and is outside the clutches of Rent Control Act. For the purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases-

1.Shri 1008 Murti Bhagwanji Mahavir Swamiji Mahraj Virajman Mandir and another v. Komal Prasad Jain (Deceased) by L.Rs. and others, 2010 All CJ 525, wherein it was observed that if it is established that building in question is a religious institution and is meant for public charitable purposes, no further elucidation is required. Temple in question is covered within purview of Section 3(s) of Act.

2. S.Nihal Singh v. Vith Addl. D. and S.Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1978 All CJ 425, wherein it was observed that public Dharamshala comes under expression “Public Charitable Trust” and entitled to file application under Section 21(1)(a).

3. Baba Jamuna Das Mahanth v. Prescribed Authority and others, 1984 All CJ 529, wherein it was observed that it is necessary that it should be a trust and that vacant land is a public charitable or reli