At suit institution stage, courts limited to prima facie scrutiny of plaint for cause of action; cannot suo motu enquire into plaintiff's representative authority without notice and registration.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Prashant Pandey, holding brief of Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, laying challenge to the legality and validity of the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Hathras in SCC Revision No. 31 of 2020 (Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Private Trust vs. Smt. Reena Gupta), whereby the revisional court has allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge Small Causes, Sadabad, District Hathras in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2020, and directed the trial court to register the proposed Small Causes Court suit and proceed with the matter after issuing notice to the opposite party.

3. The case originates from a plaint filed on 27.05.2020 by Devkinandan Agrawal, adopted son of Shri Damodardas, claiming to be the Managing Trustee of Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Private Trust Virajman Temple situated at Dharamshala Motiram Ji, Village Sherpur, Vinoba Nagar, Salempur Road, Tehsil Sadabad, District Hathras. In the plaint it was alleged that the said trust is the owner and landlord of a shop situated at Sherpur, Salempur Road, Vinoba Nagar, Sadabad, District Hathras and that the defendant, Smt. Reena Gupta, is a tenant in the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- inclusive of 10% water tax and 10% house tax with effect from 16.02.2017.

4. It was further pleaded that an agreement dated 15.01.2017 had been entered between the parties under which the rent was to be enhanced by 10% after every three years and in case of default in payment of rent for four months the tenant would be liable to pay interest at the rate of Rs.2 per hundred. The plaintiff asserted that the rent from 16.11.2019 onwards had fallen due and that despite repeated demands the tenant failed to make payment. It was also pleaded that a legal notice dated 18.03.2020 was sent to the defendant through registered post demanding arrears of rent and calling upon her to vacate the premises. According to the plaintiff, despite receipt of the notice the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. Consequently, the plaintiff sought eviction of the defendant and recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.15,329/- along with other consequential reliefs.

5. The plaint was presented before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge Small Causes, Sadabad, District Hathras on 29.05.2020. Upon presentation of the plaint, the trial court observed that the plaintiff, namely Devkinandan Agrawal, claiming himself to be the Managing Trustee of the trust, had not clearly specified the basis on which he had been appointed as trustee or how he was authorized to institute the suit on behalf of the trust. On this premise the trial court did not register the case as a Small Causes Court suit but instead treated the plaint as a miscellaneous matter and registered it as Misc. Case No.01 of 2020. The trial court further directed the plaintiff to produce evidence regarding his authority to institute the proceedings on behalf of the trust.

6. Thereafter the trial court proceeded to hear the plaintiff on the question of admission of the case. During the course of such proc