1. Heard Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 26.02.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Pilibhit in P.A. Case No. 15 of 2012 (Thakur Murli Manohar Ji Maharaj Viraajman Mandir vs. Vinod Kumar) and order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Pilibhit in P.A. Appeal No. 05 of 2015 (Vinod Kumar vs. Thakur Murli Manohar Ji Maharaj Viraajman Mandir).

3. On the basis of the pleading on record it is evident that the respondent-landlord had initially filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 10 of 2004 (Thakur Murli Manohar Ji Maharaj vs. Krishna Avatar) praying for eviction of the tenant Krishna Avatar, the father of the petitioner herein before the Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pilibhit. The landlord had prayed for a decree of eviction as well as arrears of rent @ Rs.1377.68 per month w.e.f. 20.09.2004 to 08.10.2004 and also for damages @ Rs.20/- per day till the date of giving of peaceful and vacant possession of the property in dispute.

4. It was submitted by the landlord, who was the plaintiff in the aforesaid S.C.C. Case No. 10 of 2004 that the plaintiff was a public charitable trust/public religious institution and, therefore, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would not apply. The defendant-Krishna Avatar had not given rent w.e.f. 01.12.1987 onwards. A notice was issued to him under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 19.08.2004 demanding arrears of rent and determining the tenancy. Krishna Avatar refused to pay up or to vacate the premises, hence the need arose to file the S.C.C. Suit.

5. The petitioner's father, who was initially arrayed as defendant in the S.C.C. Suit was later on substituted by the petitioner and his mother Vimla Devi. The defendants raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit. It was contended that the disputed property although belongs to the Mandir Thakur Murli Manohar Ji Maharaj (herein after referred to as the 'Temple'). The Temple itself was not a public charitable trust nor a public religious institution. It was a private Temple for which a Gift Deed had been executed in the year 1889 by one Munna Lal s/o. Girdhari Lal r/o. Mohalla Bhainsbhand, District Pilibhit. Munnalal had gifted all his properties to the Temple and founded a Trust for its management. Munnalal continued to be the Manager of the said Trust till his death and thereafter his brother managed the property and thereafter his nephew. It was a private Temple and, therefore, not exempted from the application of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was also alleged that the house/shop in dispute being built before the cut off date as mentioned in the deed was governed by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Therefore, the S.C.C. Suit was not maintainable. Evidence was led by both the parties. The tenant filed a copy of the Gift Deed of 1889 and also a copy of a Will of 1948.

6. The landlord also led evidence and stated that the Temple was a public property, it was being run on donations given by the public, it was situated adjacent to a public road, it remain opened on all 365 days in a year from 8:00 a.m. onwards and there was no restriction on devotees coming to the Temple and offering puja/archana and, therefore, it could not be held to be a private Temple.

7. The learned Small Causes Court framed 06 issues for decision of the S.C.C. Suit. The first such issue was "whether the property in dispute was amenable to the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972." Since the first issue related to a jurisdictional fact, all other issues arising out of non-payment of arrears of rent or alleged material alteration by the tenant of the property in dispute or the user of the disputed property for purposes other than the one for which it was leased out were secondary