Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This revision petition has been directed by the landlord- Mandir Jamuna Dass Jawaharlal S. Sanatan Dharam Mahabir Dal Trust, against order dated 17.10.1984 passed by the appellate Authority, Ambala City, whereby it accepted the appeal of the tenant by setting-aside the order of the Rent Controller, Ambala City, dated 3.2.1983 and dismissed the petition for ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises with no order as to costs. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner-Trust, through its Secretary, Tirloki Nath, instituted an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 in respect of premises bearing House Tax No. 2547-48, Bangali Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. on the allegations; that the said property described as house was rented out to Shankar Dass, respondent @ Rs. 65/- per month besides water tax etc. but the respondent had not paid the arrears of rent and had further changed the user of the premises in dispute as it was let out for residential purposes but he had converted it for non-commercial purposes by opening a provision store in it. 3. The respondent tendered the arrears of rent etc. on 15.6.1979 and as such, the landlord give up the ground of non-payment of rent. 4. The respondent filed written reply and controverted the allegations of the petitioner. He stated that the demised premises were let out to him for non- residential purposes and the same were being used as such, since the very inception of the tenancy. He also took the plea that ejectment application on behalf of the Trust was not competent and further Tirloki Nath was also not competent to file the ejectment application. In view of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 10.1.1980 :- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground mentioned in the application? 2. Whether Tirloki Nath is not competent to file the present application. 3. Relief. The parties adduced their evidence. In view of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 10.1.1980 :- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground mentioned in the application? 2. Whether Tirloki Nath is not competent to file the present application. 3. Relief. The parties adduced their evidence. 5 The Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., vide his order dated 3.2.1983 accepted the application of the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises and further directed the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of it within a period of two months from the date of order by holding under Issue No. 1 that there was no change of user as the major portion of the demised premises was being used by the respondent for residential purposes. Under Issue No. 2, it was held that Tirloki Nath had every right to present the application as he was the Secretary of the Trust and he had been authorised vide resolution Ex. A5/2 dated 30.1.1976 to file the petition. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant filed the appeal, which was accepted by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.10.1984 by holding under Issue No. 2 that the Trust was not a legal entity and as such, was not entitled to sue in its name and further Tirloki Nath could not file the application on behalf of all the trustees. However, the finding of the trial Court on Issue No. 1, as recorded by the Rent Controller, was affirmed by observing that there is a change of user from residential to non-residential purposes. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the landlord-Trust has filed the present revision petition. 8. During the pendency of the revision petition, Shankar Dass, respondent- tenant, died and on the basis of will, Annexure R-1 dated 9.2.1992, his son, Chuni Lal, was impleaded as his legal representative. 9. I have heard Shri Vinod Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hari Om Sharma, counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the record. 10. 8. During the pendency of the revision petition, Shankar Dass, respondent- tenant, died and on the basis of will, Annexure R-1 dated 9.2.1992, his son, Chuni Lal, was impleaded as his legal representative. 9. I have heard Shri Vinod Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hari Om Sharma, counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the record. 10. Counsel for the respondent contended that the Trust is not a legal entity and it cannot sue or be sued in the name of Trust and as such, the application for ejectment against the respondent should have been filed by all the Trustees and it could not be maintained by one of the Trustees on behalf of all the Trustees without impleading all the Trustees. He further contended that the other Trustees were not competent to authorise under the Trust Deed, Shri Tirloki Nath to file application on their behalf and as such, any resolution or authorisation done by the Trustees was illegal and not valid. He has further referred to the Trust Deed and on the basis of the Trust Deed, he contended that it was not mentioned in the Trust Deed that the other Trustees could authorise or delegate their functions to one of the Trustees. For this contention, he placed reliance upon an authority i.e. Duli Chand v. M/s Mahabir Parshad Tirlok Chand, 1984(1) RCR(Rent) 422 (Delhi) : 1984 HAP 368 Delhi, in which it was observed that the Trust is not a legal entity as such and in law, all the Trustees are owners of the property and in fact all the Trustees are the legal entity, so, all the Trustees must join to file a suit and the suit in the name of Trust is not maintainable. He has also placed reliance upon another authority of Gujarat High Court i.e. Atmaram Ranchhodbhai v. Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin and another, AIR 1973 Gujarat 113 Full Bench, in which the same view was reiterated by holding that unless the instrument of Trust otherwise provides, all co-Trustees must join in filing a suit to recover possession of the property from the tenant. In the present case, in the Trust Deed, it is not provided that one of the Trustees can file suit or ejectment application. In the present case, in the Trust Deed, it is not provided that one of the Trustees can file suit or ejectment application. The present application has been admittedly filed by the Trust, namely, Mandir Jamna Dass Jawahar Lal Sanatan Dharam Mahabir Dass Trust through its Secretary, Shri Tirloki Nath, Cross Road No. 2, Ambala Cantt. 11. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the Trust deed cannot be taken into consideration because it was not duly proved and further the right cannot be denied to the Trust to file the application, particularly when the rent receipt, Ex. RW4/2 was in favour of the Trust. He further contended that predecessor-in-interest of the respondent had taken the demised premises on rent from Tirloki Nath and as such, Tirloki Nath cannot be denied the status of landlord, so, if the application was not maintainable on behalf of the Trust, then it was maintainable on behalf of Tirloki Nath because the application had been filed by the Trust through Tirloki Nath, Secretary of the Trust. For this contention, he placed reliance on an authority of this Court i.e. Jawahar Lal v. Dev Raj and others, 1981(1) RCR 84, in which it has been observed that where the property belongs to Trust, then one of the Trustees, who is entitled to receive rent can maintain a petition for ejectment. The above-mentioned authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above mentioned authority, the application for ejectment was filed by Jawahar Lal. In fact, the premises were let out by Jawahar Lal to Dev Raj and others. Later on, he created a Trust and the property vested in the Trust but it was held that since Jawahar Lal is the landlord who had given the demised premises on rent when he was the owner so, he could file an application for ejectment of the tenant independently. However, in the present case, the application has not been filed by Tirloki Nath independently but has been filed by the Trust through him. It has not been proved on file that according to the Trust Deed, Tirloki Nath could have been authorised vide resolution to file the present application. Of course, Resolution Ex. A5/1 was passed in favour of the Tirloki Nath to maintain the present application on behalf of the Trust. It has not been proved on file that according to the Trust Deed, Tirloki Nath could have been authorised vide resolution to file the present application. Of course, Resolution Ex. A5/1 was passed in favour of the Tirloki Nath to maintain the present application on behalf of the Trust. The said resolution was passed by 8 Members of the Trust out of total 12 Members, so, it was not an authorisation on behalf of all the 12 Trustees. Thus, in view of the discussion above, I hold that the application of ejectment filed by the Trust is not maintainable. In the alternative, Tirloki Nath was not competent to file the application. Moreover, the application has not been filed by Tirloki Nath in his individual capacity as landlord. Thus, the findings of the Appellate Authority on Issue No. 2 are affirmed. Hence, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-Trust is dismissed. Revision dismissed.