# Rambabu Gupta & Ors v. Shri Ganesh Maharaj Virajman

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 64
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-06
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 3900 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rambabu-gupta-ors-v-shri-ganesh-maharaj-virajman-54550
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law-The
Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Building (Regulation of letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972-Sections- 21 (1)
(a) & 2 (1) (bb)- Whether even in case
of a private trust bona fide need can only
be set up for the requirement of the trust
and not qua family members of the
trustee?---After the amending Act came
into force the public charitable trusts no
more are amenable to rent authority
jurisdiction qua rights under the Act of
1972 but the private trusts do and the last
part of provisions as have remained unamended under Section 21(1) (a) shall not
apply to a private trust.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have a possessory rights in respect of
undivided property. It is a settled law that in
respect
of
a
property
of
co-sharers,
possession of one is taken to be possession of
all other co-sharers. This is the principle that
has been followed till date. However, in
respect of release application upon being filed
which is a summary proceeding in which
even the title issue cannot be gone into except
incidentally and that too where the petitioner
raises plea of inherent lack of title but this is
not the case in hand. The facts of that case are
absolutely distinguishable and the principle
enunciated in the said judgment does not
attract to the present case.

7. In view of the above, I do not
find any manifest error in the order passed
by the Prescribed Authority.

8. Petition is devoid of merits and
is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 64
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3900 of 2022

Rambabu Gupta & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Shri Ganesh Maharaj Virajman
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Nikhil Chaturvedi, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Nitin Yasharth, Padmaker Pandey, Sunil
Kumar Srivastava, Yasharth

Civil
Law-The
Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Building (Regulation of letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972-Sections- 21 (1)
(a) & 2 (1) (bb)- Whether even in case
of a private trust bona fide need can only
be set up for the requirement of the trust
and not qua family members of the
trustee?---After the amending Act came
into force the public charitable trusts no
more are amenable to rent authority
jurisdiction qua rights under the Act of
1972 but the private trusts do and the last
part of provisions as have remained unamended under Section 21(1) (a) shall not
apply to a private trust.

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Nawab Sardar Meer Sultan Saheb Alim Khan
Saheb Vs R.R. Gibson 1969 (71) BomLR 357 =
Law Finder DocId # 31388

2. Genda Lal Vs District Judge, Kanpur Nagar &
ors.Allahabad Rent Case 1999 volume 1 Page
No. 3

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri P.K. Jain, learned Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Shri
Nikhil
Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for
petitioners and Shri Atul Dayal, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nitin
Yasharth, learned counsel appearing for
respondent

2. Petitioner tenant has assailed the
order of release passed by the Prescribed
Authority in P.A Case No. 41 of 2011 in
favour of the landlord respondent only on
the ground that a personal need could not
have been set up for the members of the
family of Mutawalli even in the event the
trust is a private trust and in support of his
submission learned counsel appearing for
petitioner has relied upon Section 21 1 (a)
of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of
letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
There was also a point raised before the
2 All. Rambabu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Shri Ganesh Maharaj Virajman
65
Prescribed Authority and appellate
authority qua jural relationship between the
respondent landlord and petitioner tenant
but the said point has not been pressed
before the Court. Thus, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for tenant petitioner has
only pressed the point of bona fide need
and, hence, question of maintainability of
the
release
application
before
the
Prescribed Authority.

3. In support of his submission
learned counsel for petitioner has relied
upon a judgment of Coordinate Bench of
Bombay High Court in the case of Nawab
Sardar Meer Sultan Saheb Alim Khan
Saheb v. R.R. Gibson 1969 (71) BomLR
357 = Law Finder DocId # 31388 relevant
paragraph No. 16 of the judgment has been
placed before the Court referring to the
relevant provisions quoted therein of the
Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act, 1918
which is claimed to be para materia to
Section 21 1 (a) insofar as the bona fide
need in respect of trust property is
concerned. Relevant paragraph 16 runs as
under:
 "As already pointed out the trustdeed permits only the Managing Trustee to
occupy one of the flats for better
management of the trust and one such flat
has already been occupied by the present
Managing Trustee, viz. plaintff No. 1.
Again in her deposition before the trial
Court, plaintff No. 3 stated in crossexamination:
 If I occupy the flat in suit, I will
have to pay the rent."
 That clearly shows that the
plaintiff wanted the premises for being let
out to plaintiff No. 3. That would not be
occupation by plaintiff No. 3 either in her
capacity as a trustee or as a beneficiary.
Even otherwise, it would illegal for a
trustee unless authorised by the trustee
unless authorised by the trustdee to use the
trust property for his or her own purpose.
No claim for recovery of possession can,
therefore, be founded on the plea that the
one of the trustees in his or her capacity as
a trustee wants to occupy the suit
premises."

4.
Shri
Jain,
learned
Senior
Advocate has further argued that the point
of maintainability of release application
was pressed by moving miscellaneous
application upon which hearing was
deferred vide order dated 13.10.2014 on the
ground that this point will be determined at
the time of final disposal but this point has
virtually remained undecided. It is argued
that the court of appeal has manifestly erred
in
affirming
the
judgement
of
the
Prescribed Authority.

5.
Countering
the
above
submissions advanced by Shri P.K. Jain,
learned Senior Advocate, Shri Atul Dayal,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for
respondent has placed before the court the
judgment in the case of Genda Lal v.
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and
others Allahabad Rent Case 1999 volume
1 Page No. 3 and has placed before the
Court paragraph 5 and 6 of the judgment
that according to which in case of a
private trust principles applicable to the
public charitable trust will not be attracted
especially in the circumstances when
amendments have been brought in vide
U.P. Act No. 6 of 1995 inserting Clause
(bb) under Section 2 (1) of Act No. 13 of
1972,
exempting
public
religious
institutions from the operation of the Act,
1972. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment
are reproduced hereunder:

 "5. In order to appreciate the
above argument of the learned Counsel, it
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is relevant to mention here that by U.P. Act
No. 6 of 1995, Clause (bb) was inserted in
Section 2(1) of the Act whereby it has been
provided that the Rent Control Act shall not
apply to any building belonging to or
vested in the public charitable trust or
public religious institution. This Amending
Act came into force with effect from
26.9.1994.

6. First of all it may be indicated
that there is nothing on record to indicate
that the building in question belonged to or
vested in a public charitable trust. There is
a distinction between a public charitable
trust and a private charitable trust. To a
building belonging to a private charitable
trust the Act does not cease to operate on
account of the amended Clause (bb). But
assuming for the sake of argument that the
building in question is covered by Clause
(bb), it is to be noted here that the revision
filed against the order of allotment made in
favour of the petitioner had already been
decided on 21.9.94 before the Amending
Act came into force. The order of allotment
made in favour of the petitioner thus stood
cancelled even before the Amending Act
came into force. A perusal of the order of
the Revisional Court shows that the order
of allotment made in favour of the
petitioner was cancelled for valid reasons
as it was found that the mandatory
provisions contained in Rules, 8(2) and
9(3) of the Rules were given a complete go
by the authority concerned. Under the said
provisions the landlord has a vested right
to have a notice of the proceedings relating
to the allotment of the vacant building. This
is obviously for the reason that f the
building is bonafide required by the
landlord, he may apply for its release
under Section 16 (1) of the Act. After when
the order of allotment made in favour of the
petitioner was set aside by the Revisional
court, the petitioner was left with no rights
in himself which he could enforce in law.
Therefore, even on the assumption that on
account of the Amending Act having come
into
force
during
the
pendency
of
proceedings before the R.C&E.O held in
pursuance of remand of the Revisional
Court, the petitioner is not entitled to
derive any advantage on that account as
his status as that of an unauthorised
occupant remained the same because
indubitably he came to occupy the building
in question on the basis of allotment order
which was cancelled later on by the
Revisional Court. With the cancellation of
allotment order his status became that of
an unauthorised occupant having no rights
to continue to retain the occupation of the
building in question."

6. Since learned Senior Advocate
appearing for petitioner does not press the
point of jural relationship of the respondent
landlord and tenant petitioner, the Court
proceeds on the admitted fact position that
there existed this jural relationship. Under
the circumstances, therefore, the only point
that is to be looked into is, as to whether
even in case of a private trust bona fide
need can only be set up for the requirement
of the trust and not qua family members of
the trustee.

7. Petitioner though had questioned
the trust while setting up a plea of title also
but ultimately rested upon the point as to
the
maintainability
of
the
release
application only for the reason that need
was set up for the family members of the
trustee, namely, the mutawalli.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
respective parties and having perused the
records, in order to address this issue as has
been raised by learned Senior Advocate
appearing for petitioner, it is relevant to
2 All. Rambabu Gupta & Ors. Vs. Shri Ganesh Maharaj Virajman
67
produce Sub-Clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of
Act No. 13 of 1972 that runs as under:

 "21. (1) (a) that the buildings is
bona fide required either in its existing
form
or
after
demolition
and
new
construction by the landlord for occupation
by himself or any member of his family, or
any person for whose benefit it is held by
him, either for residential purposes or for
purposes of any profession, trade or
calling, or where the landlord is the trustee
of a public charitable trust, for the objects
of the trust;"
(emphasis added)

9.
The
aforesaid
highlighted
provision clearly stipulates that in the
matter of charitable trust the need for the
residential purposes of charitable trust, the
object of trust is to be set up in order to
apply for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of
the Act. This provision has continued on
the statute right from the beginning when it
came into force vide gazetted notification
dated 13.03.1972 after it was assented by
President on 08.03.1972. However, Clauses
(bb) came to be inserted under Sub-Section
1 of Section 2 of the Act vide U.P.
Amendment Act No. 5 of 1995 w.e.f.
26.09.1994, the said provision is quoted as
under:

"2(1).......

(a).....

(b).....

(bb) any building belonging to or
vested in a public charitable or public
religious institutions."

10. From the bare reading of the
aforesaid provision, it is clear that public
charitable trust or public religious institutions
have been taken out from the purview of the
Act No. 13 of 1972 and thus in these
circumstances even though the relevant
portion of the clause a of Sub-section 1
Section 21 ought to have been deleted but
they remained a statute. In my considered
view even if this provision remained
unamended, it got rendered otiose as this
provision chiefly speaks of public trust. Thus,
the said part of provision would not be
attracted in the present case as it is admittedly
a private trust and not a public trust. The
judgment of the Bombay High Court refers to
the identical provision of the Act. Upon
reading of the relevant paragraph 1 it clearly
transpires that public charitable trust fall
within the purview of the Bombay Act. The
Coordinate Bench discussed the relevant
provision of the said Act and the intendment
of the legislature to the effect that
protection has been granted to serve the
purpose of the trust and its object and not the
individual beneficiary. Upon repeated query
being
made
learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing for petitioner, could not point out
any provision of the Bombay Act to
demonstrate that in the said Act also public
charitable trusts are no more amenable to
jurisdiction of the Rent Authorities under the
said Act. Besides that I find that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Genda Lal (Supra) has rightly observed that
after the amending act came into force the
public charitable trusts no more are amenable
to rent authority jurisdiction qua rights under
the Act of 1972 but the private trusts do and
the last part of provisions as have remained
unamended under Section 21(1) (a) therefore,
shall not apply to a private trust.

11. In such above view of the matter,
therefore, I do not find force in the argument
advanced by learned Senior Advocate
appearing for petitioner. No other point has
been pressed.

12. Petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 68
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5780 of 2023

Mahendra Kumar Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
Mohammad Imran & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Smriti Gupta

Civil Law - U.P. Urban Building Control of
Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 -
Sections 20 (4) & 30 (1) - Uttar Pradesh
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021 - Section 4 - Against eviction
order
-
Quantum
of
deposit
-
Tenant/petitioner
upon
suit
being
instituted
for
non-payment
of
rent,
required to deposit rent and damages
both for use and occupation of building
and too in its entirety but damages to be
calculated at same rate as rent together
with their interest at rate of 9% per
annum and cost of suit that may have
accrued to landlord - In entire judgment
of trial court, there is no determination of
or reference to cost of suit and what
damages tenant was liable to pay -
Findings that demanded rate of rent and
damages not paid - Merely because tenant
could not exactly say what would be
amount or rate of rent at current market
value, trial court not justified in holding
that deposit made fell short of requisite
deposit - To deny statutory benefit to
petitioner are unsustainable - The deposit
could not rejected only on ground that
challan form did not disclose under which
head deposit had been made - Suit for
recovery of arrears of rent and damages
by landlord is dismissed. (Para 19, 25, 26,
28)

Petition partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kashi Nath Vs Sushila Devi 2003 (2) ARC 347,
(Paras 70 to 73, 76)

2. S.B.I. Vs Shankar Dayal Agarwal 2010 2 ARC
378

3. Ramesh Kumar Sachdeva Vs Rakesh Kumar
Rastogi, Civil Revision No. 125 of 2013, decided
on 21.3.2018

4. Mahendra Pratap Garg Vs Smt Vijay Lakshmi
General 1983 (1) ARC 74, (Paras 12 to 20)

5.
Gopal Yadav Vs Special Judge (Anti
Corruption)/ Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Varanasi & ors. 2002 (1) ARC 197, (Paras
8, 14, 16 to18)

6. Sushil Sharma Vs VIII A.D.J., Ghaziabad 2001
ARC page 458, (Para 9) (Relied on)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Shivangi Nanda, learned
Advocate holding brief of Ms. Rama Goel
Bansal, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and Ms. Smriti Gupta, learned
Advocate appearing for landlord respondents.

2. The tenant petitioner is before
this Court questioning the judgment and
decree passed by the Judge Small Causes,
Jhansi in SCC Suit No. 17 of 2015
decreeing the suit for eviction as well as the
judgment and order dated 12.04.2025
passed by Additional District Judge Court
No.4 Jhansi affirming the judgment of the
trial court.

3. Ms. Nanda, learned Advocate
appearing for petitioner assailing the