Allowed

Surendra Babu J, v. M/S Gundu Muneshwara Swamy Devastana Trust (R)

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024CRP/302/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants of portions of a temple property challenged eviction decrees obtained by a trust, contending it had no right or title. The High Court held the trust deed did not vest management of the temple or its properties in the trust and no landlord-tenant relationship was proved, and set aside the eviction decrees and orders.

What did the court decide?

Eviction decrees in SC Nos.1520-1527/2017 and HRC orders in HRC Nos.65-66/2017 set aside; tenants need not vacate.

Surendra Babu J, Vs M/S Gundu Muneshwara Swamy… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 302 OF 2023 C/W CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 305 OF 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 309 OF 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 311 OF 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 314 OF 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 316 OF 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 320 OF 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 327 OF 2023 HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 11 OF 2020 HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 12 OF 2020

¶6

IN CRP No. 302/2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SURENDRA BABU J, S/O LATE JANAKI RAMPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT PORTION OF SRI GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA, NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R) OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶14

REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURT ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN SC NO.1524/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION.

¶17

IN CRP NO. 305/2023

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

RAMACHANDRA RAO M., S/O MANOJ RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT A PORTION OF SRI GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD MATADAHALLI BENGALURU-560 032.

¶20

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R) OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶23

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶25

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURT ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN SC NO.1525/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU. DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT POSSESSION.

¶26

IN CRP NO. 309/2023

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

RAMESH SINGH, DEAD BY LRS SMT. JAYALAKSHMI BAI, W/O LATE. KUMAR SINGH, C/O RAMESH SIGH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, RANKA NAGAR, HOUSING BOARD, SULTAN PALYA, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032

¶29

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R) OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶32

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶33

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURT ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN S.C No.1522/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREED THE SUIT FOR SEEKING VACANT POSSESSION.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶36

IN CRP NO. 311/2023

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

ARUN SHARMA S S/O LATE SHIVA NARAYANA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT A PORTION OF SRI GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA, NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶39

...PETITIONER

¶40

(BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R) OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶43

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶44

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN SC.NO.1520/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT POSSESSION.

¶45

IN CRP NO. 314/2023

¶46

BETWEEN:

¶47

NAGAMMA, W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT A PORTION OF

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶49

SRI GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD MATADAHALLI BENGALURU-560 032.

¶50

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶51

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R) OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶52

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶53

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1523/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION, VACANT POSSESSION.

¶54

IN CRP NO. 316/2023

¶55

BETWEEN:

¶56

RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE RENUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT A PORTION OF SRI GUNDLU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA, NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD MATADAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶57

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶58

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶59

AND:

¶60

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R) OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶61

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶62

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN SC.NO.1526/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT POSSESSION.

¶63

IN CRP NO. 320/2023

¶64

BETWEEN:

¶65

HANUMANTHAPPA T., SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶66

1 (A) SMT. H DEVIKA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA T AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶67

1(B) SMT RAJESHWARI D/O HANUMANTHAPPA T AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶68

1(C) SRI H LOKESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA T AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶69

1(D) SMT H MANGALA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA T AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶72

1(E) SMT H SUJATHA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA T AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶73

ALL ARE R/AT A PORTION OF SRI GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD MATADAHALLI BENGALURU-560 032.

¶74

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶75

AND:

¶76

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R) OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶77

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶78

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN SC.NO.1527/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT POSSESSION AND ETC.

¶79

IN CRP NO. 327/2023

¶80

BETWEEN:

¶81

HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, RESIDING AT A PORTION OF SRI GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA, NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD,

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶83

¶84

MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶85

AND:

¶86

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R) OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶87

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶88

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN SC NO.1521/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU. DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT POSSESSION.

¶89

IN HRRP NO. 11/2020

¶90

BETWEEN:

¶91

VIJAY SINGH T K S/O TUKARAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT A PORTION OF SRI GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032

¶92

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶93

AND:

¶94

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R)

¶95

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶97

OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 032 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶98

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶99

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020 PASSED IN HRC.NO.66/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(a) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.

¶100

IN HRRP NO. 12/2020

¶101

BETWEEN:

¶102

ARJUN RAO SOLANKEY R S/O RAMOJI RAO SOLANKEY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT A PORTION OF SRI GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶103

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶104

AND:

¶105

M/S GUNDU MUNESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANA TRUST (R) OFFICE AT NO.10, LANCER'S ROAD, MATADAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 032 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SRINIVAS G. PATEL.

¶106

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶107

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶108

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020 PASSED IN HRC.NO.65/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(a) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999. FOR EVICTION AND ETC.

¶109

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶110

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶111

ORAL ORDER

¶112

These petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Trial Court, wherein the petitioners were directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the properties belonging to Sri Gundu Muneshwara Swamy Devastana (hereinafter referred to as the “Temple”). Since the issues raised in these petitions are interconnected, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

¶113

M/s. Gundu Muneshwara Swamy Devastana Trust filed suits for eviction and HRC (House Rent Control) petitions seeking directions against the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of portions of the Temple properties, alleging that the defendants were in occupation as tenants and had defaulted in the payment of rent. The Trust also

¶114

11 -

¶115

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶116

sought payment of arrears of rent along with interest at 12% per annum.

¶117

In their plaints and petitions, the plaintiffs contended that the Trust was registered on 04.07.1984 under the Indian Trusts Act. They asserted that the primary function of the Trust is to manage the Temple’s affairs through a committee of managing trustees and trustees performing rituals and other services. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were chronic defaulters in paying rent, and despite repeated demands, the arrears remained unpaid, leading to the termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

¶118

The defendants appeared before the Trial Court, filed their written statements, and denied the allegations made in the plaints. They contended that the suits were barred by limitation and denied the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship between them and the Trust. They further argued that the Trust had no right, title, or interest over the suit schedule properties.

¶119

After considering the pleadings and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court framed relevant issues for consideration. It concluded that the plaintiffs had successfully established the landlord-tenant relationship and

¶120

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶121

held that the termination of tenancy was in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Trial Court directed the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs.

¶122

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suit schedule properties belonged to the Temple and that the plaintiff-Trust had no legal right, title, or interest in the said properties. Therefore, the Trust lacked the locus standi to maintain the suit for eviction. It was further argued that the Trial Court’s order was legally unsustainable.

¶123

In response, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the registered trust deed clearly indicates that the suit schedule properties are under the control and management of the family Trust. Therefore, the suits for eviction filed by the Trust were maintainable. The respondents further pointed out that the defendants, during cross-examination, admitted to paying rent to one Annayyappa, who was a legal representative of the family trust.

¶124

The respondents also referred to the revenue proceedings conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, which concluded that the land in question is private property. The Temple situated on the said land has

¶125

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶126

been managed by the ancestors of Shri Annayyappa and Shri Narayanappa for over a century, and their legal heirs are now the trustees of the family trust.

¶127

The learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments to substantiate her arguments:

¶128

R. Kapilnath (Dead) through L.R. v. Krishna, (2003) 1 SCC 444.

¶129

M. Siddiq (Dead) through Legal Representatives (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others, (2020) 1 SCC 1.

¶130

J.P. Srivastava & Sons (P) Ltd. and Others v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 72.

¶131

After examining the arguments advanced by both parties and the records of the Trial Court, the core issue for consideration is whether the plaintiffs/Trust have the locus standi to maintain the suit for eviction. The defendants, during cross-examination, admitted to paying rent to Annayyappa, who is acknowledged as one of the legal representatives of the family managing the Trust.

¶132

The suit was filed by M/s. Gundu Muneshwara Swamy Devastana Trust, represented by its authorized signatory, Sri Srinivas G. Patel. Upon reviewing the trust deed (Ex.P2), it is evident that the Trust comprises eleven

¶133

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶134

members, with Sri M. Narayanappa serving as the lifetime president.

¶135

The primary objectives of the Trust include:

¶136

a) Building a Kalyana Mantapa.

¶137

b) Donating library books to educational institutions.

¶138

c) Making donations to hospitals providing services to the underprivileged.

¶139

d) Supporting organizations such as the Indian Red Cross Society.

¶140

e) Providing financial assistance to deserving individuals in the fields of Indian arts, culture, and literature.

¶141

However, a perusal of the trust deed reveals that it does not explicitly vest the Board of Trustees with the power to control or manage the affairs of the Temple and the suit schedule properties. The name of the Temple is mutated in the property records in relation to the suit schedule properties, and not in the name of the trust.

¶142

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in similar circumastances has held as follows:

¶143

i) J.P. Srivastava and Sons (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Gwalior Sugar Ltd. Company & Ors. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 172

¶144

Therefore although as a rule, trustees must execute their duties of their office jointly, this general principle is subject to the following exceptions when one trustee may act for all (1) where the Trust

¶145

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶146

15 -

¶147

Deed allows the trusts to be executed by one or more or by majority of trustees (2) where there is express sanction or approval of the act by the co-trustees; (3) where the delegation of power is necessary; (4) where the beneficiaries competent to contract consent to the delegation; (5) where the delegation to a co-trustee is in the regular course of the business; (6) where the co-trustee merely gives effect to a decision taken by the trustees jointly.

¶148

ii) R. Kapilnath (Dead) Through Lr v. Krishna reported in (2003) 1 SCC 444

¶149

A petition for recovery of possession of any premises can be filed by the landlord against the tenant within the meaning of Section 21(1). Clause (h) of Section 3 includes in the meaning of 'landlord' any person who is for the time being receiving or entitled to receive rent in respect of any premises whether on his own account or on account or on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person etc. It cannot be doubted nor has it been disputed that the respondent is 'landlord' within the meaning of Section 3(h) abovesaid. Though the appellant claimed himself to be an owner also so long as he has been found to be a landlord he is entitled to maintain the action for eviction under Section 21(1) (p). The plaintiff or petitioner may claim a higher right and may succeed in proving only a smaller right or entitlement to relief but that would not result in disentitling the plaintiff or petitioner from succeeding so long as the smaller right successfully substantiated by him is enough in law to entitle him to a relief against the defendant

¶150

iii) Kamuthi Madalaichay alias Sivanendal Peumalasamy Koil Private Trust through its private Trustee Ponnusamy Nadar V. Thangarathi Nadar reported in 1990 2 L.W. 332

¶151

Under Ex. A.1 the trustee is the landlord represented by one of the trustees. The eviction petition, if at all is allowed, will enure to f the benefit of the trust represented by all the three trustees. Therefore, the judgment referred to in the decision (1980) 1 Mad LJ 274 (supra) can be distinguished as stated above. Learned counsel for the respondent also cited a decision of this Court reported in Shan-mugha V. Subayya, AIR 1922 Mad 317 for the proposition that in a suit for ejectment of a trust property, alt the co-trustees

¶152

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶153

16 -

¶154

must be made parties. For the same principle, learned counsel for the respondent cited a decision of this Court reported in Vedakannu Nadar v. Nangunert Taluk Singikulam Annadana Chatram, AIR 1938 Mad 982. Learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Kanta Goel v. B. P. Pathak, wherein it was held that the co-heir of deceased landlord constitute the body of landlords and, by consent, implicit or otherwise, of the plurality of landlords, one of them representing them all, was collecting rent and functioned for all practical purpose as the landlord and was, therefore, entitled to institute proceedings for eviction against the tenant v. a landlord. In that case, one of the trustees representing the trust filed an eviction petition for and on behalf of the trust. In the instant case the respondent was inducted into possession of the property under Ex. A. 1 by the trust represented by S. Ponnusami a co- trustee. Therefore, I do not accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent that all the trustees should join in the action for eviction especially when the trust itself is landlord represented by one of the cotrustees.

¶155

iv) M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LRs. (Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple Case) V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. reported in (2020) 1 SCC 1

¶156

The shebait is entrusted with the power and the duty to carry out the purpose of the donor in respect of the idol and its properties. In the vast majority of cases, a shebait is appointed in accordance with the terms of a deed of dedication by which property is endowed to an idol. It is for the protection of this property that the law recognises either the donor or a person named in the deed of endowment as the shebait. In the absence of an expressly appointed or identified shebait, the law has ensured the protection of the properties of the idol by the recognition of a de facto shebait. Where a person is in complete continuous and management of the deity's affairs coupled with long, exclusive uninterrupted and possession of the appurtenant property, such a person may be recognised as a shebait despite the absence of a legal title to the rights of a shebait.

¶157

17 -

¶158

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶159

Where a person claims to be a shebait despite the lack of a legal title, the relevant enquiry before the Court is whether the person was in actual possession of the debutter property and was exercising all the rights of a shebait. The paramount interest in the protection of the debutter property underlines the recognition of a de facto shebait. Where there is no de jure shebait, the court will not countenance situation where a bona fide litigant who has exercised all the managerial rights over the debutter property cannot be recognised in law as the protector of the property. It is only for the paramount interest of the institution that the right to sue is conceded to persons acting as managers though lacking legal title manager.

¶160

v) Sheela & Ors. V. Firm Prahallad Rai Prem Prakash reported in (2002) 3 SCC 375

¶161

A person may be a 'landlord' though not an 'owner' of the premises. The factor determinative of landlordship is the factum of his receiving or his entitlement to receive the rent of any accommodation. Such receiving or right to receive the rent may be on the own account of the landlord or on account of or for the benefit of any other person. A trustee, a guardian and a receiver are also included in the definition of landlord. Such landlord would be entitled to seek an eviction of the tenant on one or more of such grounds falling within the ambit of Section 12(1) of the Act which do not require the landlord to be an owner also so as to be entitled to successfully maintain a claim for eviction.

¶162

Summary of Legal Principles Established in the Aforementioned Decisions:

¶163

One trustee implements a decision taken jointly by all trustees.

¶164

• A landlord can file an eviction petition even if they claim to be an owner but prove only a lesser right (like being a landlord).

¶165

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶166

• The term “landlord” includes any person entitled to receive rent, whether on their own behalf or for the benefit of others.

¶167

• If the landlord-tenant relationship is established, the petition is maintainable, even if the petitioner claims higher ownership rights but establishes only the landlordship.

¶168

• In an eviction suit involving trust property, one trustee may represent the trust without necessarily involving all co-trustees, provided:

¶169

• Co-trustees need not always be parties if one trustee represents the collective interest effectively.

¶170

• The role of a shebait (temple custodian) involves managing the deity’s property and affairs.

¶171

• A de facto shebait (one who acts as a shebait without legal title) may be recognized if they have been in continuous, exclusive management of the temple’s property and affairs.

¶172

• Protection of the deity’s property is paramount, and courts may recognize de facto managers to prevent harm to temple interests, even without formal legal title. • A person can be a landlord without being the owner of the property.

¶173

• The essential criterion for determining landlordship is the right to receive rent, either on their own account or on behalf of another (e.g., trustee, guardian, or receiver).

¶174

• Such a landlord can seek eviction under applicable laws, even if they do not hold ownership rights, provided they establish their entitlement to receive rent.

¶175

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶176

A person entitled to collect rent qualifies as a landlord and can maintain eviction proceedings, irrespective of ownership claims.

¶177

One trustee can represent a trust in legal matters, and a de facto manager or shebait may be recognized if it serves the trust’s or temple’s best interests.

¶178

For eviction suits involving trusts, the key consideration is the authority and representation of the trust, not necessarily the inclusion of all trustees or proof of ownership.

¶179

The said decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case, since the plaintiffs have not established that the suit schedule properties vested with the trust in the manner known to law, nor the trust deed or available material record establishes that the trust was managing the affairs of the temple or collecting rents from the tenants.

¶180

In paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment in S.C. No. 1524/2017, the Trial Court has categorically held that although there are no records to show that the defendant was paying rent to the plaintiff-Trust, it is proved that the plaintiff is the landlord. However, the defendant has failed to place any material on record to establish the capacity in which he is residing in the suit schedule property.

¶181

The evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff-Trust is neither the owner of the suit schedule property nor entrusted with the management and affairs of the

¶182

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶183

20 -

¶184

Temple or its properties. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court, holding that the plaintiff-Trust is the landlord despite the absence of records proving payment of rent by the defendant to the plaintiff-Trust, is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record.

¶185

Furthermore, in its cross-examination, the plaintiffTrust has admitted that the tenants have been in occupation of the suit schedule properties for the past 35 to 40 years. PW1, Srinivas G. Patel, who led evidence on behalf of the plaintiffTrust on authorization, stated that his grandfather had executed the rent agreements with the tenants. Hence, even according to the plaintiff-Trust’s own case, the tenancy was created much prior to the creation of the Trust, and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff- Trust and petitioner - tenants.

¶186

In view of the foregoing analysis, the plaintiff-Trust has failed to establish a valid landlord-tenant relationship with the defendant. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶187

ORDER

¶188

i) The revision petitions stand allowed.

¶189

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶190

21 -

¶191

ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.3.2023 passed in SC No.1524/2017 passed by the learned II Addl. Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶192

IN CRP No. 302/2023

¶193

The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2023 passed in SC No.1524/2017 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶194

IN CRP NO. 305/2023

¶195

The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2023 passed in SC No.1525/2017 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶196

IN CRP NO. 309/2023

¶197

The impugned order dated 25.03.2023 passed in S.C No.1522/2017 on the file of II Additional Judge and ACMM Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶198

IN CRP NO. 311/2023

¶199

The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2023 passed in SC.No.1520/2017 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶200

22 -

¶201

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶202

IN CRP NO. 314/2023

¶203

The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2023 passed in S.C.No.1523/2017 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶204

IN CRP NO. 316/2023

¶205

The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2023 passed in SC.No.1526/2017 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶206

IN CRP NO. 320/2023

¶207

The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2023 passed in SC.No.1527/2017 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶208

IN CRP NO. 327/2023

¶209

The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2023 passed in SC No.1521/2017 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. is hereby set aside.

¶210

NC: 2024:KHC:49718 CRP No. 302 of 2023 C/W CRP No. 305 of 2023 CRP No. 309 of 2023 AND 7 OTHERS

¶211