A Pujari is not a tenant and, therefore, not entitled to the protection under Section 14 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

S. K. Phaujdar, J.-

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-7-1095 passed by the 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Sr. Division Dehradun, in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1981 which, in its turn, had challenged the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1981 passed by the Illrd Munsif, Dehradun in O. S. No. 195 of 1980. The suit was filed on behalf of two deities, Murti Sri Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj and JVlahadeo Ji Maharaj against the present appellant and another through their shebait for permanent injunction from restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the functioning, working or performing and doing normal and usual 'duties and functions and ceremonies in the temple and for possession of the rooms in occupation of the present appellant and for other ancilary reliefs. It was stated that in the year 1935 a trust was created by a registered deed regarding the temple and deities together with the Dharamshala and shops attached thereto. Plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 2 were appointed the trustees by the trust deed. It is not disputed that original plain tiff No. 2, Bhagwati Devi, died and she is represented by Anurag Gupta. There had been a suit against the defendant No. 2 as he had committed a breach of trust by disposing of part of the temple property and the suit was decreed in the year 1985. It was stated that defendant No. 1 (present appellant) was employed as a Pujari to perform the usual Pujas and functionings in the temple and he was provided with an accommodation in the Dharamshala in a room specifically shown in the plaint map. This defendant No. 1 was not carrying out his duties properly and was negligent in performing them and it was necessary to remove him. He was served with a notice terminating his services as a Pujari and calling upon him to quit and vacate the room so left in his occupation. Defendant No. 1 instead of complying with the notice wrongfully occupied four rooms and put his lock over the plaintiffs lock on those rooms. Accordingly, the suit was filed. There was no specific prayer against defendant No. 2, barring that he should not have disturbed or interfered in the normal functioning of the Pujas.

2. THE suit was contested by defendant No. 1. It was asserted on his behalf that the trust in question was a religious trust. It was stated that there was a suit against defendant No. 2 for having committed breach of the trust and it was admitted further that the suit was decreed. It was, however, asserted that an appeal against the decree is still pending before this Court. It was stated that Anurag Gupta was trying to oust defendant No. 1 "by any means as this defendant was opposing the illegal activities of the trustees. THE defendant asserted that he was per forming the sewa of the deities since 1942-43. He was to get a salary of Rs. 40 per month but the said sum was never paid to him. As a pundit he lived a humble life with the formal donations given by the devotees during Pujas. THE allegations of his actions being against the interest of temple were denied.

The trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs against defendant No. 1 and a permanent injunction was issued against him not to interfere in the daily performance of Puja in the temple. There was a further direction that the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the rooms which was shown specifically in the map. Defendant No. 1 was directed to give pos session of the same to the plaintiffs within a month from the date of decree. The first appeal that was preferred by the defendant No. 1 was also dismissed with costs. In this second appeal, the substantial questions of law that were framed in the memorandum of appeal read as follows: (1) Whether proper issues were not framed; (2) Whether findings recorded by the Courts are perverse; and (3) Whether trust-deed itself bring under challenge in O. S. No. 109 of 1977 pending before the District Judge, the present suit was barred.

3. THE first two points were