THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2150 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is a trust. It is created for maintenance of a tank. The respondent was the tenant in respect of Ac.6.00 of land. The petitioner filed O.S.No.215 of 1989 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, for recovery of rent for the years 1986-87 and 1988-89. The suit was opposed by the respondent. One plea raised by him was that the petitioner does not have locus standi to file the suit. The other was that the rent for the years 1986-87 and 1988-89 was paid and land revenue, payable for the land, liable to be deducted from out of the rent payable for the year 1988-89. The trial Court held that the rent for the year 1988-89 is payable after deduction of the land revenue, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi. The petitioner filed A.S.No.124 of 2002 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The appeal was dismissed on 1.09.2005. Hence the C.R.P. Heard Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the respondent. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, placed reliance upon the judgment in A.T.A.No.121 of 1986 marked as Ex.B.1 in the suit, in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner does not have locus standi. Except stating that the managing trustee, by name, Marreddy Subba Reddy Tank Trust, has no locus standi, the respondent did not plead as to who is the person that can represent the trust. Even if there exists any internal disputes as to the election or constitution of the trustees, it is not for the respondent to point out the same, particularly, when the scope of the suit is very limited. After discussing the evidence at length, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was under obligation to pay rent for the year 1988-89. Unless and until the respondent himself claims status or position in the trust, he is not entitled to raise any objection as to the locus standi. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court committed error in holding that the petitioner has no locus standi. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and consequently, the suit shall stand decreed to the extent that the respondent shall be under obligation to pay rent for the year 1988-89 after deducting a sum of Rs.428/-. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 16th September, 2009 Js.