structures have been occupied by tenants. There are about 50 tenants,
who are in occupation of various premises in these three structures. The
trust itself is in occupation of one room in the structures. It is also in
possession of a temple in the subject land. It is an admitted position,
and also considered so by the learned Charity Commissioner, that the
structures were in a dilapidated condition and there has already been a
notice of demolition issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai in respect of the structures. On these facts, the trust was
desirous of selling the subject land. It initially found a purchaser by the
name of Geecy, who had offered to purchase the subject plot for a sum
of Rs.15.50 crores. After entering into an understanding with this
purchaser, the Petitioner trust applied for Charity Commissioner’s
sanction under Section 36 of the Act. The permission was not, however,
issued by the Charity Commissioner inter alia on account of want of
sufficient publicity for the proposed sale. The Charity Commissioner
also noted that there was resistance from tenants of the property. The
trust, in the premises, dropped its original proposal of selling the subject
plot to M/s. Geecy. The Petitioner trust, in the premises, gave up its
original proposal of selling the subject land to M/s. Geecy and instead
re-initiated sale proceedings. It issued public notices in leading
newspapers circulating in the locality and, with adequate publicity as
well as time given to prospective purchasers, proposed to sell the subject
property. The sale notices, however, did not elicit any response from
any third party. In time to come, tenants of the subject property
themselves found a purchaser, who is Respondent No.2 to the present
writ petition. The trust, thereupon, entered into negotiations with
Respondent No.2 and came to an understanding, which is reflected in an
