Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1017 (PNJ)

Shri 10008 Bhagwan Shanti Nath Digamber Jain Mandir v. Gaindi Devi

2002-10-04

HEMANT GUPTA

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. This is a landlords petition against the orders passed by the two Courts below holding that the ejectment petition is not maintainable as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 2. Digamber Jain Mandir Panchayat leased the demised property to one Kidar Nath in the year 1955. A rent note Ex.A.l dated 25.6.1955 was executed by Kidar Nath in favour of Digamber Jain Mandir Panchayat, Narnaul through Lala Durga Parsad. 3. It has been stated by PW 6 Rattan Lal that the entire movable and immovable property is that of Bhagwan Shanti Nath Ji. Earlier the affairs of the temple were being managed by a Panchayat which was not registered. The respectable used to manage the affairs of the temple as trustees. Subsequently, it was got registered as Shri Bhagwan Shanti Nath Digamber Jain Mandir, Narnaul The witness has produced Registration Certificate Ex. PW 6/A. On 15.3.1978, a meeting of the jain community was called and a constitution was approved. The resolution of the said meeting was produced as PW 6/B, whereas the constitution has been produced as PW6/C. On the basis of the said documents, the petitioners sought ejectment on the ground that they are the landlords and owners of the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the concession given by its Advocate before the Appellate Authority that Shri Bhagwan Shanti Nath Digamber Jain Mandir has no locus standi to bring the petition being a religious society is not binding on the rights of the petitioner. The concession given that the society could not be registered under the Societies Registration Act as only charitable Society could be registered under the said Act is wholly incorrect and misreading of law and facts. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said concession is erroneous in law and not binding on the rights of the petitioners. It was submitted that the constitution of society Ex.PW 6/C shows that the society was established for religious and charitable purpose and was validity registered under the Societies Registration Act. Earlier Shri Digamber Jain Panchayat has let out the premises. It was submitted that the constitution of society Ex.PW 6/C shows that the society was established for religious and charitable purpose and was validity registered under the Societies Registration Act. Earlier Shri Digamber Jain Panchayat has let out the premises. At the time the said panchayat was a collective name of the jain community which was given a legal name and entity by Registration of the Societies under the Societies Registration Act vide Ex.PW 6/A. The petitioner is nothing but continuation of Shri Digamber Jain Mandir Panchayat. 5. Alternatively, the petitioner argued that the petitioner No, 1 is a Society estab lished to manage the affairs of the temple which is that of Murti Shri Bhagwan Shanti Nath Digamber Jain, Since the idol is also the petitioner, therefore, it is an ejectment pe tition on behalf of the idol which is juristic person. Initially, the affairs of the idol were being managed by Digamber Jain Mandir, Panchayat. Now the same are being managed by a registered society and thus, the present petition filed on behalf of idol itself is also maintainable. 6. I have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the counsel for the petitioners. 7. The ejectment petition has been filed by Registered Society as well as by the idol. Initially, the affairs of the temple were being managed by a panchayat, an unregistered group of respectable of jain community. However, subsequently, in a general meeting of representatives of the jain community constitution of the society EX.PW 6/C was approved and it was resolved to constitute a society which was registered. Thus, petitioner No. 1 is nothing but continuation of Shri Digamber Jain Mandir Panchayat. Petitioner No. 1 is not stranger to the premises or to the temple but a society registered for managing the affairs of the temple which was earlier being managed by unregistered group of respectable of jain community. Therefore, in my opinion, the findings recorded by the courts below that the petition for ejectment by the registered society constituted for charitable and religious purposes is not maintainable, cannot be allowed to stand and is liable to be set aside. The concession given by the counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court on the face of it is incorrect. Neither the society is a religious society as conseded before the Appellate Authority. The document Ex. The concession given by the counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court on the face of it is incorrect. Neither the society is a religious society as conseded before the Appellate Authority. The document Ex. PW6/C shows that it is religious and charitable society. Secondly, whether the petition is maintainable on behalf of such concession of a question of a law is not binding and can be adjudicated by the aggrieved person. 8. It may also be noticed that the petition has been filed on behalf of the idol as petitioner No. 2. Idol is a juristic entity competent to sue and be sued in its own name. The fact that the affairs of the idol were being managed earlier by unregistered group and now by registered society does not affect the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent. The respondent who was inducted as a tenant of Digamber Jain Mandir Panchayat cannot deny the title of his landlord. With the passage of time, the only change is that from unregistered group of respectable of jain community, respectable of jain community have constituted a registered society and sought ejectment of the tenant. 9. In view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from ma terial illegality and irregularity which are not sustainable in law. Consequently, I allow the present petition set aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority holding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further direct the Rent Controller to expeditiously dispose of the petition on merits in accordance with the law.