Judgment (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-3-1994, passed by respondent No. 1 setting aside the allotment order. (2.) THE property in dispute is property of Batala Housing Trust, Hanumangarhi Kankhal, Haridwar. On 6-8- 1934 Munshi Ram, Sukh Dayal and Khushal Mal executed a trust deed whereby they gave their property in trust for public benefit. They appointed themselves as founder trustees and further appointed (i) Bharat Ram, (ii) Ramji Das, (iii) Bhagat Ram, (iv) Lal Hari Chand and (v)j Lala Maulak Ram as trustees. THE founder trustees had a right to appoint and remove the trustees. Subsequently, Munshi Ram and Sukh Dayal, founder trustees, and some other trustees, expired. Khushal Chand (founder trustee) and Bharat Ram executed a trust deed on 24-9-1946, by which eight persons including Harideo were appointed as trustees. Bharat Ram was heir of Munshi Ram, founder trustee, and was nominated as one of the trustees by 1934 deed. In the meantime seven trustees appointed by the deed dated 24-9-1946, died and thereafter the last surviving trustee Hari Deo executed a deed dated 23-6-1986, whereby he appointed three other persons namely, Mahendra Sen Sarin, Sudarshan Kumar Sarin and Satish Chandra Sarin, sons of late Bhagat Ram (who was one of the seven trustees) as trustees. Sri Mahendra Sen Sarin was appointed as Chairman of the Board of Trustee. THE property in question was recorded in the name of trust through Chairman in the municipal record. Sri Raghubir Singh was appointed as Manager to look after the trust property as well as to serve the pilgrims staying in the trust building. After Hari Deo executed the deed, dated 23-8-1986, it is alleged that he was given a notice on 25-2-1987 by Mahendra Sen Sarin, respondent No. 2, removing him from the post of Manager. (3.) ON 1-7-1988, the petitioner applied for allotment of the trust property consisting of three rooms, latrine and bath on the ground floor of Batala Ashram situate at Kankhal. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report on 8th July, 1988, stating that on the spot he met Rabhubir Singh, respondent No. 4, who claimed himself as a Manager. The accommodation was found locked, Raghubir Singh told the Rent Control Inspector that he was in possession but he was unable to open the lock. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report on 8th July, 1988, stating that on the spot he met Rabhubir Singh, respondent No. 4, who claimed himself as a Manager. The accommodation was found locked, Raghubir Singh told the Rent Control Inspector that he was in possession but he was unable to open the lock. He informed that the key had been taken away by his son. He further intimated that the disputed accommodation was never let out to any one at any time and it is going to be let out for the first time. A true copy of the report is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Raghubir Singh submitted nomination in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of allotment of the disputed accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer gave a notice of the allotment proceedings, as well under Rule 9 to Raghubir Singh. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the accommodation by his order, dated 29th July, 1988 to the petitioner who is alleged to have taken the possession on the next day by breaking open locks. Mahendra Sen Sarin, respondent No. 2 filed revision against the allotment order before the District Judge. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision, vide order, dated 21st March, 1994. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition. (4.) IT is not disputed that the premises in question was never allotted at any time to any one. Mahendra Sen Sarin, respondent No. 2 filed revision against the allotment order before the District Judge. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision, vide order, dated 21st March, 1994. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition. (4.) IT is not disputed that the premises in question was never allotted at any time to any one. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not have allotted an accommodation which was never in the tenancy of any parson except there was a valid nomination as provided under Rule 10 (9) of the Rules which reads as under: "In the case of a building which was never let out before, the District Magistrate shall serve on the landlord a notice asking him within a month of service thereof whether he is willing to throw the building open for letting and if so, to nominate a person in whose favour the allotment may be made, and thereupon ; (a) if the landlord intimates the District Magistrate within said period that he does not want to let out the building, it shall not be allotted; (b) if he intimates the District Magistrate within the said period his consent to letting and nominate a person in that behalf, the allotment shall be made in favour of that nominee ; (c) if the landlord fails to send any such intimation within the said time, it shall be open to the District Magistrate to allot the building to any person. This provisions makes itself clear that in case the building had never been let out it could have never been allotted by the District Magistrate if the landlord intimates that the accommodation be not allotted. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon nomination given by Raghubir Singh claiming a Manager of Batala Ashram Trust in favour of the petitioner. It is urged that as a manager he had right to nominate in favour of any person and has placed reliance upon the definition of landlord as given in Section 3 (j) of the Act which defines the landlord in relation to building, a person to whom its rent is or if the building were let, would be, payable and includes, except in clause (g), the agent or attorney, or such person. (5.) IT is not denied that the property in question is of Batala Ashram Trust. (5.) IT is not denied that the property in question is of Batala Ashram Trust. The Trust was founded in the year 1934 for the public benefit. The trust deed of 1934 provides that the property shall be used for religious and public charitable purposes. This property is situate in Kankhal, Haridwar. IT has been stated in the counter affidavit that this accommodation was being used for the pilgrims who used to come for pilgrimage. Respondent No. 4 was assigned the duty to look after the property as well as to serve the pilgrims staying in the trust building. A lease is transferred of right to enjoy the property leased under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, vide B. Ramman Lal v. Raghunath Shanker and another, AIR 1941 All 537. In case the object of trust is that its property be utilized for public benefit, the manager of such trust, cannot create any interest in the property of the trust even by letting out to any person. Even the trustees cannot act against the interest of the trust. In the famous treatise "hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts" Fourth edition, page 6, the learned author Shri B. K. Mukherjee observed: ''whoever may be regarded as the beneficial owner in law, the trustee who is in possession of the trust property, and is entrusted with duty for complying it for a particular purpose cannot be its owner and the obligation can be imposed against him in such a manner as the law lays down. " (6.) IN Halsbury's Laws of England a trust has been defined as confidence reposed in a person with respect of property of which he is in possession or over which he can exercise power, to the extent that he may hold the property or exercise the power for the benefit of some other parson. The object of the trust as provided in the trust deed of the year 1934 was (bat the trust property may be used for public benefit. Even a trustee could not have, without justifying his action on the ground of some benefit to the trust and its object, create an interest in the property which is contrary to the very spirit of the trust, Raghubir Singh was admittedly not even a trustee. Even a trustee could not have, without justifying his action on the ground of some benefit to the trust and its object, create an interest in the property which is contrary to the very spirit of the trust, Raghubir Singh was admittedly not even a trustee. He could not have created any kind of interest in the property for the first time without any resolution being passed by the trustees. (7.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Sarnam Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1982 (1) ARC 745, wherein it was held that the nomination can be made by Mukhtar-e-Aam of the landlord as under the definition of the landlord in Section 3 (j) of the Act includes his agent or attorney. This case has no application to the facts of the present case where an agent cannot create a right for the first time in the property without any specific authorization by the landlord and secondly relating to a property of a trust against object of the trust. (8.) AS discussed above there was no specific authorization in favour of respondent No. 4 to nominate any person for the purpose of letting as provided under Rule 10 (9) of the Rules framed under the Act, he could not have nominated the petitioner for the purpose of letting and that too against the object of the trust. It is further contended on behalf of respondent No. 2, that the right of respondent No. 4 to manage the property was revoked by a notice given to him on 23-2-1987 and thereafter he had no right to manage the property in question or to nominate any person for the purpose of allotment of the disputed accommodation. This involves question of fact and need not be decided in the writ petition. On the view taken above, the allotment order otherwise on the basis of the nomination given by respondent No. 4, was invalid. (9.) THE next submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that respondent No. 2 had no right to file revision. THE trust deed was created by the deed, dated 6th August, 1934, and only those persons who were mentioned as trustees or their heirs were entitled to manage the property. (9.) THE next submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that respondent No. 2 had no right to file revision. THE trust deed was created by the deed, dated 6th August, 1934, and only those persons who were mentioned as trustees or their heirs were entitled to manage the property. Respondents have placed reliance upon deed dated, 24th September, 1946 executed by Khushal Chand (Founder Trustee) and Bharat Ram, one of the five trustees referred in the deed of 1934. They had appointed eight persons as trustees. Seven of them had expired except Har Deo. Har Deo was a trustee and he had executed another trust deed and appointed respondent No. 2 as Managing Trustee. It is not necessary to decide the question of rights of the trustees in question or their rights to manage the property but it is clear that respondent No, 2 was functioning as a Managing Trustee and the property was also recorded in the name of Batala Ashram Trust through its Chairman. Respondent No. 2 was its Chairman according to the deed, dated 23rd August, 1986. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer was bound to give a notice to the Chairman and Managing Trustee of the trust who was recorded in the Municipal records. In any case, he had right to file revision against the order of allotment for the benefit of the trust. (10.) IN the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.