Allahabad High Court
Garib Das (Now Dead Through L.Rs) And 5 ... vs Sri Thakur Ranji Maharaj Virajman ... on 26 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148394
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:25.7.2025
Delivered On:26.8.2025
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6432 of 2025
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Devansh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/ respondent instituted a SCC Suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendants/ petitioners/ tenants from the shop in question which was registered as SCC Suit No.100 of 2001. Plaintiff / respondent No.1 is a temple and Plaintiff / respondent No.2 is a public charitable trust. Defendants / petitioners/ tenants filed their written statement denying the plaint allegations. Plaintiffs / respondents filed their replication in the aforementioned SCC Suit. Nine issues were framed in the aforementioned suit and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. The Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 27.2.2013 decreed the plaintiffs' suit no.100 of 2001 for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant from the shop in question. Petitioners challenged the judgement and decree dated 27.2.2013 by way of revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 before District Judge which was registered as SCC Revision No.37 of 2013. The aforementioned revision was heard by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Agra and the same was dismissed by judgement dated 4.4.2025. Hence, this petition on behalf of the petitioners / tenant for the following reliefs:
"Call for record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgements dated 4.4.2025 (Contained in Annexure No.VI to the petition) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Agra dismissing the SCC Revision No.37 of 2013, Garib Dasa Vs. Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and another) and 27.2.2013 (Contained in Annexure No.IV to the petition) passed by the learned Judge Small Cause Court, Agra decreeing the S.C.C. Suit No.100 of 2001, Shree Thakur Ji Mahraj Virajman Mandir and Another vs. Garib Das."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that SCC suit has been decided by the Judge Small Cause in arbitrary manner decreeing the suit of the landlord for arrears of rent and ejectment from the shop in question. He further submitted that the trust in dispute has not been notified is a place for public, religious and charitable trust, as such, the SCC Suit cannot be decreed unless plaintiffs have locus to institute the suit. He further submitted that there was no default in payment of rent by the petitioner. He further submitted that document dated 3.11.1973 is not a trust-deed of SriRangji Mahraj Trust Vrindavan, as such, SCC suit filed by plaintiffs-respondents cannot be decreed. He further submitted that revisional court has also erred in applying the provisions of law contained in Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted that mere sending of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not sufficient for termination of tenancy of the tenant, as such, the impugned judgement cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He placed the following judgement of Apex Court in support of his argument:
"(2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 397, Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs. Amrit Lal & Co. And Another"
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 submitted that the concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Judge Small Cause and revisional Court for decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, as such, no interference is required against the concurrent judgement passed by the Judge Small Cause and revisional Court. He further submitted that nine issues framed by the Judge Small Cause has been properly decided taking into consideration Section 2 (1-bb) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.13 of 1972") in holding that the suit was properly instituted at the instance of plaintiffs and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He further submitted that the finding of fact has also been recorded that provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable in view of the fact that the disputed property belongs to public charitable trust. He further submitted that there was default in payment of rent and finding to this effect has been recorded by the Judge Small Cause. He further submitted that the finding has also been recorded that notice dated 28.8.1997 issued by the landlord to tenant is a valid notice. He further submitted that the similar controversy in respect to the same trust at the instance of the different tenant has been decided by this Court in Matter Under Article 227 No.869 of 2018, Ram Narain Vs. Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Agra & 3 others along with three connected petitions vide judgement dated 11.5.2018, as such, no interference can be made against the impugned judgment passed by small cause Court. He further placed another order of this Court dated 3.4.2019 passed in Matter Under Article 227 no. 3463 of 2015, Rajjan Lal and 4 others vs. Shree Thakur Rangji Mahraj Virajman Mandir and Another in respect to the same trust in which this Court has dismissed the petition following the earlier judgement of this Court passed in Ram Narain (supra). He further submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC Suit filed by plaintiffs/ respondents for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed by Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 27.2.2013 and revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 filed by defendants / tenants/ petitioners has also been dismissed vide impugned judgement dated 4.4.2025.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of the issues framed in the SCC Suit no.100 of 2021 will be relevant, which are as under:
"??????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???-
1. ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? 13 ??? 1972 ?? ????????? ???? ???? ????
2. ???? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ????, ??????? ??????????? ? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ???
3. ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ????
4. ???? ??? ????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???
5. ???? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ???
6. ???? ????? ???????? 28.08.1997 ??? ????? ??. ????? ?????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??? ???
7. ???? ????????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???
8. ???? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???
9. ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???"
8. The Judge Small Cause has considered the evidences adduced by the parties while considering the issues framed in the suit and has recorded finding of fact that provision of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable in view of the provisions contained under Section 2 (1-bb) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The finding of fact has also been recorded that property in question is public charitable trust and petitioner no.2/ plaintiff no.2 is managing trustee of the trust, as such, there is no illegality in filing of SCC Suit at the instance of trust through managing trustee.
9. The aforementioned finding has been confirmed by this Court while deciding the petition at the instance of four other tenants of the same trust in Ram Narain (supra). This Court in Rajjan Lal (supra) filed by tenant of same trust has dismissed the petition following the judgment passed in Ram Narain (Supra).
10. The Judge Small Cause has also recorded the finding of fact that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendants as well as there was default in payment of rent by tenant to landlord. The finding of fact has also been recorded while deciding the issue no.6 that notice dated 29/30.8.1997 was valid notice issued to tenant by which tenancy has been terminated.
11. The judgement of the Judge Small Cause has been maintained in revision by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Agra while dismissing the SCC Revision filed by the defendant / tenant after framing proper point of determination in the SCC Revision which is correct exercise of jurisdiction by revisional Court.
12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned judgements passed in SCC suit / revision.
13. The instant petition is dismissed.
August 26, 2025
Rameez
