1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 330 of 2010 (Govind Ramprasad Maheshwari .vs. Mathadhipati, Udasshi Math, Bhiwapur) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 26 /7/2010 Heard Mr. P. A. Markandeywar, Adv. for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction and possession. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is Mathadhipati of Udasshi Math, Bhiwapur and the suit was filed by the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also claimed that the plaintiff was a unregistered trust. However, during pendency of the appeal, it was stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff/Math was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and admitted that the Udasshi Math was the owner of the property and the defendant was tenant in the said premises. According to the defendant, the notice issued by the plaintiff for vacating the suit property was illegal. It was pleaded that the defendant was always ready to pay rent and though the rent had been paid till 31.12.2002, no rent receipts were 2 issued by the plaintiffs. The defendant, however, admitted that the Udasshi Math was the owner of the property and it was maintained by Mahant Atmanand. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court, on perusal of the evidence tendered by the parties on record, came to the conclusion that the defendant was in arrears of rent and the notice issued by the plaintiff was legal and valid. The Courts held that the duly constituted Power of Attorney holder for the plaintiff had a right to institute the suit. The Courts held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the monthly rent was Rs.1000/- and the defendant was in arrears of rent since 31.8.1995. Though certain objections were raised by the defendant about the Trust not being registered and the plaint was not filed by the Trustees, Chairman, Principal Secretary or Trustees of the Society, as required by Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, the Courts overruled the objections raised by the defendants and held on the basis of pleadings and admissions of the defendant that the plaintiff/Udasshi Math had a right to institute the suit being the owner of the property. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No orders as to costs. JUDGE jais