1 CRA No. 3 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 03 OF 2011 1 Rajasthan Chitra Mandir, Proprietor - Partner Vijaykumar Fulchand Katariya, Aged 60 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Bajar Peth, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. Applicants 2 Vijaykumar Fulchand Katariya, Aged 60 years, Occupation Business And Chairman, Resident of Bajarpeth, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 3 Anil Shrivallab Lahoti, Aged 51 years, Occupation Trader And Vice Chairman, Resident of Swatantrya Chowk, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar V E R S U S 1 Maheshwari Panch Trust, A trust registered under the Provisions of B.P.T. Act, Having No. A-233, Through its President, Onkarnath Damodar Malpani, Aged 73 years, Occ. Business And President, R/o. Malpani House Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. Respondents 2 Vishwanath Lalchand Kasat, Aged Years, Occu. Business And Secretary, R/o. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 3 Radhesham Shivnath Padtani, Aged 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Main Road, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 4 Madhavlal Damodar Malpani, Aged 68 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Malpani House, Indira Gandhi Marg, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 5 Nilesh Ashok Jaju, Age 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Marwadi Galli, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 6 Ganeshlal Bankatlal Baheti, Aged 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Vithoba Galli, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 7 Raniprasad Shivprasad Mundada, Age 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Bazarpeth, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 2 CRA No. 3 of 2011 8 Vijaykumar Laxminarayan Bhutada, Age 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Vithoba Galli, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 9 Jayprakash Somnath Indani, Age 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o Bazarpeth, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 10 Laxminarayan Kedarnath Navandar, Age 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Main Road, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 11 Rajkumar Laxminarayan Pophale, Age 49 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Main Road, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 12 Somnath Champalal Rathi, Age 48 years, Occu. Business, R/o Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 12 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 3rd March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This revision application is filed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge - I, Sangamner, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2005, dismissing the appeal. 2. The applicants were the defendants in the trial Court. The respondent No. 1 - Trust is the landlord and they sued the applicants for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises, which is used as 'Cinema Hall'. It is common ground that this Hall was given on lease to the predecessors of the applicants way back in 1944 for a period of 51 years. This period came to an end sometime in 1995, and then the Trust asked the applicants' predecessor to vacate and deliver the possession back. But, this was not obeyed. So, in December, 1999, 3 CRA No. 3 of 2011 the trustees passed a resolution and appointed two persons who were also the trustees of the Trust to sue the applicants for eviction. The ground for eviction was that the Trust required the Hall for converting it and using it as community-cum-wedding hall. The applicants opposed the action on two points; first, that the respondents / plaintiffs were not authorized to sue them. They were not trustees or that the other trustees have not joined the action and so the action was bad. Before the conclusion of the trial, an application was made by the remaining trustees and they joined the litigation. The applicants also asserted that the trust's demand of the premises was not bonafide. 3. The question was, whether the Trust could prove their requirement to use the hall. This was held in favour of the Trust by both the learned Judges of the Courts below. I am therefore not inclined to go into this question of fact at this stage. The only objection that requires attention is as to whether the suit was bad as was filed by (allegedly)unauthorized persons. It has come on record that on 7th December, 1999 the Board of Trustees met and unanimously resolved to initiate action against the applicants for eviction and authorized two persons to file the suit. The resolution also stated that other five persons would provide necessary support to the above mentioned two persons. Since the objection was raised regarding the authority of the two persons who had filed the suit, they produced on record the original resolution passed by the Trust. 4. As abundant precaution, as said above, these two plaintiffs impleaded the remaining trustees to the case. The objection continued saying that the subsequent act of impleadment of all the 4 CRA No. 3 of 2011 trustees would not cure the defect. All these objections were over ruled by the Courts below. In my view, the objections were rather irrelevant. On going through the record, I found that the applicants did not say in cross-examination that the resolution of 9th December, 1999 was passed by the persons who were not trustees of the trust. They tried to suggest that this Trust did not file change reports from 1977 till 1995, and even though the change reports which were filed in 1995, all of them were turned down. Thereby they suggested that in 1999, there was no Board of Trustees. But, as said above, it was not suggested to the respondents' witness that in 1999 the persons who claimed to be trustees of the Trust were not authorized to pass the resolution. During the course of arguments, I was shown an order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner passed in 1977. It reveals from the order that about seven persons filed an application under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act for framing of the scheme. Such application was allowed and the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner framed a scheme for the Trust. The scheme so framed provided that the Trust should have eleven trustees. However, the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner continued the existing seven trustees as Adhoc Board of Trustees directing them to implement the scheme as early as possible. In view of rejection of the change reports that were filed in 1995, it must be assumed that the Adhoc Board of Trustees continued till 1999. The applicants while defending the case, did not suggest that the resolution of 7th December, 1999, was not passed by the Adhoc Board of Trustees appointed in 1977. In absence of proper defence, this objection does not deserve further attention. It is apparent that the persons who were at the helm of the 5 CRA No. 3 of 2011 affairs of the Trust in 1999 unanimously decided to start proceeding for eviction of the applicants. They authorized two of themselves to initiate action in the Court, and so, the action cannot be said as illegal. The Courts below have not committed any error in appreciating and rejecting the objection. The revision thus would fail. The Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants orally sought two years time for vacating the suit premises. The same is rejected. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/cra/3/11/3/3/11/ok