IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2559 of 2007 Raja Arvind Pitti and others. … Petitioners. Versus Prem Chand Dixit. … Respondent. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.C.S.Rawat, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date March 11, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment dated 10-11-2007 (contained in Annexure-4) passed by the District Judge, Haridwar, whereby S.C.C. Revision No. 11 of 2005, filed by the respondent has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27-1-2005 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haridwar (for short the J.S.C.C.) has been set aside. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that the petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent-defendant, which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 48 of 1995 in the court of the J.S.C.C. alleging that the property in suit is a trust property known as Raja Bahadur Bansi Lal Moti Lal Narsingh Bhawan Trust, Haridwar (for short the Trust), which was created in the year 1931 and that the trust is a public charitable religious trust and is registered under Section 12(A) of the Income Tax Act. The trust is exempted from income tax under the provisions of Section 80 (G) of the Income Tax Act. The plaintiff-petitioners are the trustees of the trust and the trust property i.e. Dharamshala is exempted from the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The respondent is a tenant in the property in suit at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month and has fallen in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,800/- from 1-6-1990 to 31-5-1995. In spite of 2 various requests, the rent was not paid to the Manager of Dharamshala, therefore, a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served upon the defendant-respondent but the respondent has not vacated the property in suit even after expiry of the period of notice. Ultimately, the plaintiff-petitioners filed the suit. The defendant-respondent contested the suit by filing his written statement and denied the plaint allegations on material issues. It has been denied that the trust is a public charitable and religious trust. It has been asserted that the property in suit is being used as hotel and for lodging the passengers and rent is being realized from them. No public utility work is being performed by the alleged trust. On the pleadings of parties, the learned J.S.C.C. framed as many as 10 points for determination in the suit. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence led by the parties, the learned J.S.C.C. has held that the plaintiffs are trustees of the property in suit and the suit is maintainable at the behest of the plaintiffs. It was also held that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the present case and that the property in suit is religious, public and the trust is a charitable trust. Ultimately, the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed by judgment and decree dated 27-1-2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 11 of 2005 before the District Judge, Haridwar. The learned revisional court after hearing both the parties has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs are not the trustees of the alleged trust and as such, the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly the revision was allowed and the decree passed by the learned J.S.C.C. has been set aside by order dated 11-10-2007, which is impugned in this writ petition. The main ground of challenge raised in this writ petition is that the finding of the learned District Judge that the 3 plaintiffs are not the trustees of the alleged trust is not based on evidence on record and is a perverse finding. I have gone through the material placed before this Court including the impugned order of the revisional court as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned J.S.C.C. The trial court has framed point no.1 on the issue of maintainability of the suit. The learned J.S.C.C. on point no. 1 has categorically observed that the plaintiffs have filed certified copy of trust deed paper no. 37-C1. On the basis of this trust deed, it has been held that the plaintiffs are the trustees of the property in suit and on that ground, the plaintiffs have every right to maintain the present suit. But on the other hand, the learned revisional court without appraisal of the evidence on record has held that the plaintiffs are not the trustees of the property in suit and therefore the suit is not maintainable. In my view the finding recorded by the revisional court is perverse for the following reasons:- Firstly, the defendant-respondent in his written statement has not specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the trustees of the trust in question. He has only asserted that the suit has not been filed by the competent person and the plaintiffs have no right to sue. The learned J.S.C.C. on Issue No. 1 has specifically recorded a finding that the present suit has been filed by all the trustees Raja Bahadur Banshilal, Motilal, Sri Narsingh Bhawan Haridwar Trust. The learned revisional court appears to have lost sight of this fact. Secondly, the petitioners in this writ petition has filed a copy of the trust deed as Annexure No. 5 to the petition. This trust deed further lends support to the finding recorded by the learned J.S.C.C. on the point that the plaintiffs are trustees of the trust in question. Thirdly, the petitioners have filed copy of the plaint as Annexure No.1 and in paragraph no. 4, the petitioners have pleaded that the plaintiffs are the trustees of the Raja Bahadur Banshilal Motilal Narsingh Bhawan Haridwar Trust. But the defendant- respondent has simply denied the averment made in paragraph no.4 4 and has no where asserted in the additional pleas, raised in the written statement, that the plaintiffs are not the trustees of the said trust. In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered view that the finding recorded by the learned revisional court that the plaintiffs are not the trustees of the aforesaid trust and that the suit is not maintainable is not based on proper appraisal of evidence and is a perverse finding. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It would be in the fitness of things as well as in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the revisional court for deciding the revision afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11-10-2007 is set aside. The finding of the learned J.S.C.C. on point no. 1 is upheld. The matter is remanded to the revisional court and the S.C.C. Revision No. 11 of 2005 stands restored to its original number. The revisional court shall decide the revision afresh expeditiously, on merits in accordance with law after hearing all the parties. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP