A.P. SEN, J.

This was a suit brought by Shrideo Janki Raman through its Mohatminkar for eviction of the defendant under section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1931. The Courts below have decreed the suit. The appeal came up for hearing before Naik J., and he referred the case to a larger Bench for examining the correctness of the view expressed by Bhargava J., in Agarwal Hosiery Shop v. Deity Radhakishan etc. 1963 MPLJ 46. One of the questions that arose in the appeal was whether in a suit by a public trust registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 all the trustees must join in filing the suit or whether the suit by one of the trustees was competent. Bhargava J., in Agarwal Hosiery Shop's case (supra), after making a contrast between rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that a trustee could represent the beneficiaries and it was, therefore, not necessary to join all the trustees.

With great respect to the learned Judge, the view that all trustees need not join in a suit can hardly be supported. In President Badri Narayan v. Gulam Rasool Fakhruddin 1969 MPLJ 77, one of us (Sen J.,) had occassion to deal w