B. J. DIVAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. The petitioners had filed a suit against the defendants to obtain peaceful and quiet possession of the premises which have been rented out to respondent No. 1. The two petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are the Trustees of a Trust and two out of the several trustees filed the suit as the plaintiffs as the remaining trustees were not available in Ahmedabad to initiate the proceedings. The Trustees filed the suit under sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that they were trustees of a public charitable trust and the premises were required for occupation for the purposes of the Trust. The allegation in the plaint was that the plaintiffs who were the trustees wanted the premises for the purposes of starting a Harimandir i. e. a temple where no idol is installed but a photograph is placed to be used by the male followers of the particular sect called Swaminarayan Sect of Hindus and that this temple was going to be used for the spread of the tenets of Abjibapa Shri and for performing Kathas in the said Mandir. The suit was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad and the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Against this decision there was an appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes Ahmedabad; and the learned Judges who heard the appeal dismissed it and confirmed the order of the trial Court. The present Civil Revision Application under the provisions of sec. 29 (2) of the Act has been filed against this decision of the Appellate Bench. ( 2 ) IT may be pointed out that originally this property belonged to one Fakirchand Chakubhai and he had gifted the property to the second respondent who is the leader of this particular sect of Swaminarayan Sampradaya. The gift was created by a registered deed dated May 4 1959 and the Gift Deed was executed in favour of a Trust. The gift was created by a registered deed dated May 4 1959 and the Gift Deed was executed in favour of a Trust. The gift was given to the trustees of the particular Trust called Shri Mukta jeevandasji Suvarnamahotsava Jayanti Smarak Trust and the donor gave the property to the Trust for the purposes of using the property as a Harimandir for males and for purpose of having Kathavarta and for the propagation of the principles first pronounced by Abjibapa Shri and for the wider propaganda of knowledge and meditation. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are the trustees of the Trust and the plaint mentioned that as defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were residing outside Ahmedabad at the time when the suit was filed they could not be included as plaintiffs in the suit and in order to avoid misjoinder of parties they had filed this suit. The suit premises consist of a shop and defendant No. 1 was occupying these premises as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 50. 00. The notice to quit was given to the first defendant by all the trustees and thereafter the suit was filed for evicting the first defendant from the suit premises. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge held that no resolution was passed by the trustees to show that the suit property was required for; the purpose of the Trust and with that end in view possession of the suit property was to be obtained from the first defendant. He held that he was not satisfied that the requirement of the suit premises existed for the purpose of starting a temple as stated in the Gift Deed and on this ground he dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The learned Judges in the Appellate Court held that the objects of the Trust in question were not charitable objects as contemplated by the second part of sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Act and therefore no decree could be passed in favour of the Trustees for the purposes of this particular Trust under sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Act. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to refer to sec. 13 (1) (g) which is in these terms :13 Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Act. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to refer to sec. 13 (1) (g) which is in these terms :13 Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of sec. 15 a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust that the premises are required for occupation for the purpose of the trustit is thus obvious that Cl. (g) is in two parts the first part applies to ordinary landlords i. e. Iandlords who are not trustees of a public charitable trust; and the second part applies to those landlords who are trustees of a public charitable Trust. It may be pointed out that this second part was inserted in the Act by Bombay Act No. 61 of 1953 It is clear that under the terms of the second part where the trustees of a public charitable Trust in their capacity as the landlords of a particular property want to recover possession. the Trustees must satisfy the Court that the premises are required for occupation for the purpose of the Trust It is clear from the language of sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also from the Bombay Public Trusts Act that a clear distinction is maintained between a Public Trust of a religious nature and a Public Trust of a charitable nature. Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides_ In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. . . . . . . Sec 2 (13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 defines a Public Trust to mean an express or constructive trust for either a public religious or charitable purpose or both; and therefore under the Bombay Public Trusts Act a clear distinction is being maintained between a Trust for a public religious purpose and a Trust for a public charitable purpose. Every Public Trust is not necessarily a Trust for public charitable purpose. Out of these two kinds of Trusts viz. Every Public Trust is not necessarily a Trust for public charitable purpose. Out of these two kinds of Trusts viz. Trust for a public religious nature and a Trust for a Public Charitable nature the Legislature has stated in sec. 13 (1) (g) second part about trustees of a public charitable Trust. Therefore the trustees of a Public Religious Trust cannot maintain a suit under sec. 13 (1) (g) second part. ( 5 ) MR. G. D. Bhatt for the petitioners has very fairly stated at the Bar that his clients can succeed in this litigation only if the case of the petitioners falls under the second part of sec. 13 (1) (g) of the Act. The words for the purpose of the trust occurring at the end of the second part of sec. 13 (1) (g) clearly refer to the purpose of the public charitable Trust. It is possible that in a particular trust some of the objects of the trust may be purely charitable and some other objects may be purely religious. In such a case it is only in their capacity as the trustees of a public charitable trust that the trustees can maintain a suit under the second part of sec. 13 (1) (g) and that being the case the words for the purpose of the trust clearly refer to the purposes which are of a chari table nature as distinguished from a religious nature. It is not open to the trustees of a public religious trust to maintain the suit under sec. 13 (1) (g) second part. Similarly it is not open to the trustees of a mixed trust where some objects are religious and some objects are charitable to maintain a suit for possession under sec. 13 (1) (g) second part where the trustees seek to recover possession for the religious purposes of the trust as distinguished from the charitable purposes of the trust. It is only in their capacity as the trustees of the public charitable trust that they can maintain the suit. In my opinion therefore the only meaning that can be attributed to the words: for the purpose of the trust is for the charitable purpose of the trust in the context in which these words occur in sec. It is only in their capacity as the trustees of the public charitable trust that they can maintain the suit. In my opinion therefore the only meaning that can be attributed to the words: for the purpose of the trust is for the charitable purpose of the trust in the context in which these words occur in sec. 13 (1) (g) and in view of the concepts involved in Public Trust which is the larger category covering public charitable trust and public religious trust this is the only meaning that can be attributed to these words occurring at the end of sec. 13 (1) (g) second part. ( 6 ) IN the instant case Mr. Bhatt for the petitioners contends that if this meaning were to be attributed to the words for the purpose of the trust it would amount to rewriting sec. 13 (1) (g) and it would mean adding the word charitable before the words purpose of the trust at the end of this clause. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Bhatt because the only possible meaning that can be attributed to the words purpose of the trust in the context of that particular section and in the background of the definition in the Bombay Public Trusts Act and the phraseology of sec. 92 C. P. C. and general concept of a public charitable trust is as I have stated above the public charitable purpose of the trust. [the rest of the judgment is not material for the reports. ] .