The sale of a religious trust property by the Shebait is not void ab initio but voidable.

This writ peti tion is directed against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 4- 5-1995 releasing the disputed shop in favour of respondent No. 3 and the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 25-1-1996 affirming the said order in revision.

2. The dispute relates to the shop situate in Premises No. CK 66/46, Mohalla Beniyabagh, Vatanasi City.- The property belonged to Sri Shiv Sanwaliya Ji Maharaj Trust. Ramji was Shebait of this property. One Mohan was its tenant. He vacated the same and thereafter it was let out to the petitioner on 23rd September, 1991 by Ramji, Shebait of this property, for a period of 11 months with a condition that with the consent of parties the period of tenancy may be extended. Sobh Nath Tewari, respondent No. 3 filed an applica tion for allotment of this premises before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the allegation that it should be allotted to him as the possession of the petitioner is in contravention of the provision of Section 13 of the U. P, Urban Bumming (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). On his application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for a report from the Rent Control Inspector. He submitted a report that Mohan was its tenant and after vacation of the shop in question by him, it was let out by Ramji to the petitioner. A notice was issued to the petitioner and he filed objection. During the pendency of aforesaid proceeding Shebait sold the property in question to Sobh Nath Tewari, respondent No. 3, by registered sale-deed dated 5th July, 1993. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the letting to the petitioner by Ramji was illegal and his occupation was unauthorised. He passed an order declar ing vacancy by order dated 1st March, 1994 and after recording the findings that need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide and genuine, released the disputed shop in his favour vide order dated 4-5-1995. Respon dent No. 1 has vide order dated 25-1-1996 has dismissed revision against this order.

3. I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

4. Admittedly the rent deed was ex ecuted in respect to the property in ques tion in favour of the petitioner on 23rd September, 1991. Letting was in violation of Section 11 read with Section 16 of the Act. The possession of the petitioner was thus unautorised under Section 13 of the Act. In Nootan Kumar and others v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda andothers, 1993 (2) ARC 204 the Full Bench of this Court has held that where the contract has been entered into in violation of Section 11 of the Act, the possession of the oc cupant will be u nauthorised under Section 13 of the Act. The possession of the petitioner is thus to be treated as un authorised and illegal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the disputed property is religious trust property, the provision of the Act is not applicable to such properties. The She bait was entitled to let out the de butter property without any allotment order being passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under the provisions of the Act. He has placed reliance on Section 2 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995 by which clause (bb) was inserted in the Act which provides for exemption of any building belonging to or vested in public charitable or public religious institution from the operation of the Act. The Amending Act replaced U. P. Or dinance No. 19 of 1994 which was already in force with effect from 26-9-1994. This Act, however is not retrospective. In Pun jab National Bank, Ghaziabad v. Dr. Rajendra Nath Azad, 1996 (1) ARC 348, it has been held that the Amending Act No. 5 of 1995 is not retrospective. On the date of letting by the She bait, the provisions of the 1972 Act, were applicable and before the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995 came into force, the property was already sold to respondent