t~- 3i' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l SA.No. ..I47...../2011 ^N^.^-^i^c jiwae'w"" ....-."-——•"""' W^-"'{Q^-\ 1 Appellant - ^Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Sunderlal Gupta <^'_ . ^ ' ^ ^^ \- Defendant Age about 45 years, resident of Mathpara,Durg, Distt. Durg'(C.G.) Versus Respondent - ^Chandi Mandir Trust Samiti Plaintiff ^ Chandi Chowk, Durg Through - Manager, Jai Kumar Sharma Age about 55 years, S/o Late Radheshyam Sharma Resident of Brahmanpara, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^. ^^^/-/ 6fft^^^^^^-?^^ ^£ ^/s(u fi^e^ L/'o Appeal u/s 100 ofCivil Procedure Code J ^ APPELLANT: Defendant RESPONDENT: Plaintiff HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Apueal No. 167_of201 1 Arun Kumar Gupta -Versus- Chandi Saraiti, Durg Mandir Trust Chandi Chowk, Present Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel for the.respondent. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kuinar Mishra, J. ORAL JUDGMENT (5-7-2011) 1. He.ard. 2. Challenge in this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is to the concurrent judgraent and decree passed b}' fhe Courts below whereby the appellant has been directed to handover vacant possession of the suit accon-imodation to the plaintiff trust and also to pay arrears of rent from May, 2003 to May, 2005 at the rate of Rs.65/- per month and thereafter till deliveiy of possession, as also damages of Rs.20/- and Rs.400/- for the period mentioned in the decree. 3. The plaintiff is a Trust registered under the CG Public Tmst Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951'). Undisputedly, by a notification published by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the provisions of CG Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not applicable to a public trust, therefore, the plaintiff trust seryed a quit notice under Section 106 ofthe Transfer of Property Act dated 22nd-.March, 2005 (Ex.-P/1) requesting the appellant/tenant to deposit arrears of rent and to terminate his tenancy froni the last day of the-iHionth in which notice is received by the tenant. According to the plaintiff, the appellant neither delivered vacant possession nor made payment of arrears of rent. [ The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has found that quit notice under Seotion 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has been t sent in accordance with law and the tenancy has been terminated, s^s^sww.^ ?-a.. —y therefore, the plaintiff has proved its case for eviction and the defendant is liable to handover the vacant possession. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff is a public trust registered under the CG Public Trust Act, however, the person, who has filed the suit on behalf of the trust, was not authorized and thus, the suit was not maintainable. He would also submit that the trustees have died and the appellant has moved an application before the Registrar, Public Trust raising coinplaints against the trust. 6. Insofar as the contention about non-filing of the suit by a competent person, it is to be seen that the plaintiff is a trust registered under the Public Trust Act and the suit has been filed by a person, who is Manager of the Trust. The trial Court by its order dated 22-7-2009 rejected the objection raised by the appellant/defendant in this regard and has held that the suit has been filed by the Trust. According to the appellant, the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act of 1951 bar the present suit. Section 32 of the Act of 1951 provides that no suit to enforce a right on behalf of the public trust which has not been registered under this Act shall be heard or decided in any Court. In the present case, the objection of the appellant is that the suit has not been filed by a competent person, however, there is no objection to the effect that the trust is not registered, therefore, Section 32 of the Act of 1951 has no application in the present case. 7. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the tenancy has been deterrained/terminated in a lawful manner and the appellant is in arrears. 8. In view of the. above, this Court does not find any substance in this appeal, as there is no substantial question of law arising for determination in this appeal. ~The instant appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed. ^;" Barve Sd/- 1:~ Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge .•f'*' -••V-—--—-.