petitioner-landlord was one of the Acharyas-Pujaris of the temple, who owned the property. All the Acharyas had been actually impleaded as co-respondents No.2 to 11 before the Rent Controller. One of the Acharyas, who had filed the petition namely Bansi Dhar, produced rent receipts to show that the relationship as the landlord and tenant existed only between him and the tenant and the tenant could not have sought for any alteration of the building from any person other than the petitioner. Consequently, the purported act of the tenant in securing some alteration of the building through the Trustees of the temple was unauthorized. The tenant contended in defence that there had been a petition by the Trustees against the Acharyas-Pujaris for management of the Trust and for accounting. The Trustees were claiming that a Trust deed had been executed in the year 1969 and since the property vested in the Trust, the alterations made by the Trustees cannot be attributed as alterations by the tenant himself. It came through in evidence that the petition filed by the Trustees was dismissed on a technical reason that Trust deed had been made subsequent to the filing of the petition and therefore, the petition itself was not maintainable. The Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Acharya and the tenant had been established but however, the existence of a Trust deed showed that the property vested in Trust and the alterations made by the Trust could not constitute an actionable wrong of the tenant. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. In appeal, the Acharya contended that he had given evidence to the effect that the property was taken by the tenant only from him and his evidence to that effect was not even cross-examined by the tenant. The
