Sudhir Agarwal, J.;—

1. Heard Sri Krishna Ji Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sripat for respondent No. 3.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 3-landlord filed a Suit No. 23 of 1997 for eviction of petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute, claiming it a religious and charitable Institution and, therefore, by virtue of Section 21(1)(bb) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short "Act 1972") the said Act is not maintainable. The Trial Court recorded a finding on this issue against the plaintiff-landlord and held that it is applicable and dismissed the suit. The Revisional Court however has reversed the findings of Trial Court and decreed the suit after framing its own issues.

3. Sri Krishna Ji Khare submitted that only on account of the reference to the statement of DW-1, Sri Radhey Shyam Kushwaha (the petitioner) that there is a 'Statue' of Sri Ram Krishna Param Hans Devji in respondent No. 3-Ashram where he used to visit for his 'Darshan', the Revisional Court has held that respondent No. 3-landlord is an 'Ashram' and a 'public religious trust'. It has not discussed at all so as to how constitute it a 'public religious trust' in terms of the definition under Section 3(s) of the Act 1972.

4. There is no discussion in the revisional order. It is not clear as to what evidence respondent No. 3 adduced to show that it is a 'public religious trust' except of placing its trust-deed. In the circumstances, it is beyond comprehension, why Revisional Court has recorded a different finding based on no material. Sri Krishna Ji Khare further contended that the landlord-Ashram is claimed to be a 'Math' although, could not show any material or authority to substantiate submision on this aspect. In the revisional Court's judgment, it has been said to be a 'Math' without looking to the necessary aspects. In legal parlance, what constitutes religion or religious endowment or a 'Math', has been discussed in various authorities but none has been considered by the Revisional Court.

5. Sri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel also appearing for the respondent-landlord sought/endeavoured to defend the impugned revisional order on the basis and the findings contained therein.

6. The short question up for consideration "whether the Revisional Court is right in holding that Act, 1972 is not applicable to the shop in question in the light of Section 2(1)(bb) of Act, 1972".

7. Section 2, in fact, provides exemptions from operation of Act 1972 and says that nothing in this Act shall apply to the buildings covered by those as referred to in Clause (a) to (h) of Sub section (i), with which we are concerned in the present matter, and, hence, it is not necessary to refer sub section 2 of Section 2 of Act, 1972. Section 2(1) reads as under:

Exemptions from operation of Act.- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely :-

(a) any building of which the Government or a local authority or a public sector corporation or a Cantonment Board is the landlord; or

(b) any building belonging to or vested in a recognised educational institution, or

(bb) any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution;

(bbb) any building belonging to or vested in a waqf including a waqf-alal-aulad;

(c) any building used or intended to be used as a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIII of 1948) where the plant of such factory is leased out along with the building; or

(d) any building used or intended to be used for any other industrial purpose (that is to say, for the purpose of manufacture, preservation or processing of any goods) or as a cinema or theatre, where the plant and apparatus installed for such purpose in the building is leased out along with the building:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in relation to any shop or other building, situated within the precincts of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document