1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7572 OF 2008. Muhammad AlQuyayam S/o Mohammad Issaq Momin ... Petitioner. Versus Pramodkumar S/o Sharadkumar Tiwari ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.P.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.N.Suryawanshi, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 19.01.2010. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is original defendant in suit (RCS No.26/2004) filed by the Respondent for declaration and possession in respect of a open plot admeasuring 55 x 14 ft. which is part of 2 land S.No.359 situated at Dharur. The Respondent asserted that the petitioner is tenant of a Trust called "Shri Balaji Temple", Dharur. He asserted that father of the petitioner had obtained the suit property on rent by virtue of a rent note dated 20th October 1971. The property was continued to remain with him i.e. father of the petitioner as a licensee. The Respondent (plaintiff) further alleged that the petitioner claimed himself to be owner and thereby denied his status as a tenant which entail forfeiture of tenancy. Hence, he was liable to be evicted. 3. The Respondent filed application to allow him to tender the evidence for and on behalf of Balaji Mandir Trust i.e. the plaintiff. He made it clear that an Administrator is appointed to look after the affairs of the Trust, yet, he wanted to lead the evidence. The trial Court allowed his application vide the impugned order dated 30.7.2008. 4. According to the petitioner, the Respondent can not represent the Trust because he 3 has been removed from trusteeship during course of inquiry U/s 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, by order of learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur which has been rendered in application Nos.25/2005 and 7/2006. It is contended that the petitioner will be prejudiced due to examination of the Respondent because the Respondent is no more trustee of Balaji Mandir Trust and moreover has taken a contrary stand which is detrimental to the interest of the Trust. 5. Be that may as it is, it can not be overlooked that the Respondent himself has filed the suit for recovery of possession and the attempt of the petitioner is to scuttle the way of the Respondent to enter the witness box. Whether the Respondent is having locus-standi to represent the Trust or that he can not enter the witness box as a representative of the Trust are issues which may be sorted out by the trial Court after the trial is over. The trial Court may, however, direct that the Administrator appointed on the trust be added as a party, if there is 4 necessary record placed before the Court regarding change of the administration. The trial Court may also decide whether the Respondent can represent the Trust or not, after recording of the evidence. However, the issue can not be predetermined inasmuch as the order rendered by the Joint Charity Commissioner is said to have been challenged before this Court. If the petition is allowed, the net result will be that the suit will be dismissed without any trial. This in my opinion is not legally permissible. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp757208