The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the nature of the Trust as a Private Trust based on the Trust Deed and the applicability of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1972 to the Trust.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Prashant Jaiswal, learned Advocate for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the IInd Addl. Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, thereby decreeing the suit of ejectment filed by the respondents.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises situated at 253/103 Nadan Mahal Road, Yahiaganj, Lucknow at the rent of Rs. 45.00 per month. The said premises are owned by Sriman Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Thakurdwara Lal Shanker Lala Dosar Vaish Trust. The petitioner did not pay rent from July 1999 to October 2001 amounting to Rs. 1260.00 and consequently notice in this regard was also given by the respondents on 24.09.2001, but despite the notice the rent was not paid and, hence, the said suit for ejectment was filed.

4. The petitioner put in appearance before the Trial Court. It was submitted that he had in fact deposited an amount of Rs. 1500.00 towards House Tax on the aforesaid property for the benefit of the landlord in pursuance to recovery notice issued by the Lucknow Nagar Nigam. It was further stated that as per Section 108(g) of the Transfer of Property Act the said amount, which was paid towards the House-Tax, could have been appropriated by the tenant towards the outstanding amount of rent and accordingly the entire rent was paid and, hence, he was not a defaulter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the said suit itself was not maintainable before the Judge, Small Causes, in as much as the plaintiff/respondent is a Private Trust and according to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act no.13 of 1972’), Section 2(bb), the operation of the said Act does not bar any dispute pertaining to any building belonging to/vested in a Private Charitable Trust. The findings of both the courts below holding that the respondent is a of ‘Public Charitable Trust’ is perverse and contrary to record and therefore requires interference. It has been accordingly submitted that the proper remedy for the respondent was by filing an application for eviction under the Act no. 13 of 1972 before the prescribed authority, and the proceedings not having been initiated under the Act no. 13 of 1972 were without jurisdiction.

6. The Trial Court while deciding the said suit had framed seven issues. Amongst others, Issue Nos. 3 and 4 related to the nature of Trust and as to whether the provisions of the Act of 13 of 1972 would be applicable in the present case. It was considered that the said Trust was involved in working for the benefit of poor children, providing education and scholarships to such students, providing for wedding of poor persons and other welfare related activities and it also does not take any donations from the State Government. It was further stated that the said Trust is running a Homeopathic Hospital and no money is charged from the patients, except Rs. 1/-, that is charged towards registration and accordingly the Court was of the considered view that the respondent was a Public Charitable Trust. Issue No. 5 was in relation to the amount paid by the petitioner towards House Tax, which was due on the respondents and the Trial Court was of the considered view that the payment of the said amount could not be appropriated towards the outstanding amount of rent and decided the issue in favour of the respondents.

7. The petitioner has confined his arguments to Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which have been dealt with by the Trial Court.

8. Sri B.K. Saxena, Learned Advocate, has vehemently submitted that a perusal of the Trust Deed would indicate that the nature of the said Trust is a Private Trust, rather than a Public Trust.

9. A perusal of the Trust-Deed, which has been annexed alongwith the Short Coun