Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajit Kumar, J.
Rambabu Gupta And Others – Petitioners
Versus
Shri Ganesh Ji Maharaj Virajman – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 3900 of 2022
Decided On : 06-02-2025
For the Petitioner:Nikhil Chaturvedi, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: Nitin Yasharth, Padmaker Pandey, Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Yasharth
A private trust under rent control legislation may maintain a release application based on the bona fide residential need of the administrator's family, as the statutory exclusions and restricted definitions applicable to public charitable trusts do not extend to private entities.
Headnote:(A) Rent Control - Legislation governing letting and eviction - Section 21(1)(a) - Section 2(1)(bb) - Bona fide need - Release application - Private trust vs. Public charitable trust - Distinction in applicability of protective provisions. The court held that the statutory restriction limiting bona fide need to the objects of a trust is applicable to public charitable or religious trusts, which have been specifically excluded from the purview of the rent control legislation. Private trusts, however, remain subject to the Act, and a release application can be maintained demonstrating the bona fide residential need of the administrator’s family. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
(B) Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Bona fide need - Requirement of property for members of administrator’s family - Maintainability of release application by private trust - Provisions intended for public charitable trusts do not apply to private entities, allowing the latter to invoke personal or family need as a valid ground for release. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners (tenants) challenged a release order granted in favour of the respondent (a private trust). The petitioners argued that the release application was not maintainable on the ground of bona fide need for members of the family of the trust’s administrator, relying on a judicial precedent suggesting such requirements must be limited to the trust itself.
Findings of Court:
The court held that public charitable or religious institutions are exempt from the purview of the governing rent control statute under specific provisions. Consequently, principles applicable to public trusts do not govern private trusts. The legislative intent allows for release applications based on the bona fide need of the landlord, and in the case of a private trust, this encompasses the needs of the administrator's family members.
Issues: Whether a private trust is precluded from filing a release application under provisions concerning bona fide need when the requirement is for the residential accommodation of the family members of the trust’s administrator.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisions limiting the bona fide need to the objective of the trust are intended for public trusts now excluded from the ambit of the law. Private trusts remain subject to the regulations, and the requirement for residential purposes can validly extend to the immediate family of the managing trustee.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties presented conflicting arguments regarding bona fide need under u.p. rent act for private trusts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. scope of section 21(1)(a) regarding bona fide requirements of landlords in the context of trust ownership. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. private trusts remain subject to rent act, distinguishing them from public trusts excluded by statutory amendment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Heard Shri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Shri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nitin Yasharth, learned counsel appearing for respondent
2. Petitioner tenant has assailed the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A Case No. 41 of 2011 in favour of the landlord respondent only on the ground that a personal need could not have been set up for the members of the family of Mutawalli even in the event the trust is a private trust and in support of his submission learned counsel appearing for petitioner has relied upon Section 21 1 (a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. There was also a point raised before the Prescribed Authority and appellate authority qua jural relationship between the respondent landlord and petitioner tenant but the said point has not been pressed before the Court. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for tenant petitioner has only pressed the point of bona fide need and, hence, question of maintainability of the release application before the Prescribed Authority.
3. In support of his submission learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Coordinate Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Nawab Sardar Meer Sultan Saheb Alim Khan Saheb v. R.R. Gibson 1969 (71) BomLR 357 = Law Finder DocId # 31388 relevant paragraph No. 16 of the judgment has been placed before the Court referring to the relevant provisions quoted therein of the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act, 1918 which is claimed to be para materia to Section 21 1 (a) insofar as the bona fide need in respect of trust property is concerned. Relevant paragraph 16 runs as under:
"As already pointed out the trust-deed permits only the Managing Trustee to occupy one of the flats for better management of the trust and one such flat has already been occupied by the present Managing Trustee, viz. plaintff No. 1. Again in her deposition before the trial Court, plaintff No. 3 stated in cross-examination:
If I occupy the flat in suit, I will have to pay the rent."
That clearly shows that the plaintiff wanted the premises for being let out to plaintiff No. 3. That would not be occupation by plaintiff No. 3 either in her capacity as a trustee or as a beneficiary. Even otherwise, it would illegal for a trustee unless authorised by the trustee unless authorised by the trustdee to use the trust property for his or her own purpose. No claim for recovery of possession can, therefore, be founded on the plea that the one of the trustees in his or her capacity as a trustee wants to occupy the suit premises."
4. Shri Jain, learned Senior Advocate has further argued that the point of maintainability of release application was pressed by moving miscellaneous application upon which hearing was deferred vide order dated 13.10.2014 on the ground that this point will be determined at the time of final disposal but this point has virtually remained undecided. It is argued that the court of appeal has manifestly erred in affirming the judgement of the Prescribed Authority.
5. Countering the above submissions advanced by Shri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, Shri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent has placed before the court the judgment in the case of Genda Lal v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others Allahabad Rent Case 1999 volume 1 Page No. 3 and has placed before the Court paragraph 5 and 6 of the judgment that according to which i
