Short Note : 1. The question that arose for consideration was whether Shri Porwad Digambar Jain Mandir, a public trust registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, could sue for eviction of a tenant on ground provided under section 20 (d) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act through its working trustee Jugmandarlal Jain. The trial Court held that the suit was competent because Jugmandarlal Jain had filed the suit with the sanction and approval of the co-trustees. Resolutions of the collective body of trustees authorizing Jugmandarlal Jain to file the suit, are on record. The trial Court relied on the observations of this Court in Laxman Prasad vs. Shrideo Janki Raman, 1973 MPLJ 842 . 2. The counsel argued that the plaint deserved to be thrown out because it nowhere disclosed that Jugmandarlal had obtained authority from the other trustees and unless that disclosure was made, reference to resolution was not possible. 3. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel. The suit obviously was for the benefit of the trust and Jugmandarlal was not acting in his personal capacity but in a representative capacity. What was needed was a formal permission under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC, to sue on behalf of the whole body of trustees. Instead of giving notice, special or general to each trustee, the trustees voluntarily choose to assemble and passed a resolution conferring authority on Jugmandarlal to file the suit. Whether such a resolution was adopted prior to the institution of the suit or after it, should not make any difference either the co-trustees come forward to join or authorise the trustee filing the suit to act on their behalf, goes to serve the purpose implied in Order 1, Rule 8, CPC. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on Badri Harsaran vs. Gulam Rasool Fakhruddin, 1969 MPLJ 77. The proposition laid in this authority in fact supports the view I have taken. If the suit as filed was in representative capacity, the co-trustees instead of coming forward to join, can authorise Jugmandarlal Jain to continue with the suit for and on their behalf. Revision dismissed.