JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is landlord’s writ petition arising out of suit filed by it for eviction against tenant respondent in the form of S.C.C. suit No. 56 of 1996. The suit was decreed on 29.9.2003 by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Mathura, exercising powers of J.S.C.C. Through the said decree, defendant was directed to be evicted and he was also directed to pay Rs. 798.50 as arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation. Damages @ Rs. 50/- per month were also awarded from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of possession. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant-respondent filed S.C.C. Revision : No. 23 of 2003. A.D.J. Court No. 6, Mathura allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 22.7.2005. Revisional Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. However, Revisional Court permitted the respondent in the revision, i.e. petitioner, to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant in Court. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Revisional Court dated 22.7.2005. 3. The plaintiff in the suit was described as follows : “Thakur Shri Rangji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Sthit (situate) Vrindaban Dwara (through) Shri Swami Goverdhan Rangacharya Ji Maharaj, son of Swami Shri Nivasacharya Ji Maharaj Mohatmim Mutwalli awam Sewayat Thakur Shri Rangji Maharaj tatha adhyaksh (President) Shri Rang Mandir Trust Board, Vrindaban, Tahsil Wa Zila Mathura Dwara Mukhtar-e-aam (power of attorney) Sri Ram Kishan Singh son of Ram Lal”. 4. The main objection of the tenant was that in view of a judgment of this Court dated 13.4.1926 given in First Appeals No. 355 and 422 of 1922 and First Appeals No. 11 and 168 of 1923 and in view, of registered supplementary trust deed dated 8.11.1873, Mohatmim Mutwalli or President of Shri Rangji Mandir Trust Board alone could not file the suit. The other objection-was that in any case Mohatmim Mutwalli and President could not appoint attorney to file suit. The said contention was rejected by the Trial Court by holding that Swami Goverdhan Rangacharya Ji Maharaj, who was Mohatmim Mutwalli and President of the Trust Board, was authorised to file suit either by himself or through Attorney. Revisional Court reversed the said finding. 5. The said contention was rejected by the Trial Court by holding that Swami Goverdhan Rangacharya Ji Maharaj, who was Mohatmim Mutwalli and President of the Trust Board, was authorised to file suit either by himself or through Attorney. Revisional Court reversed the said finding. 5. Both the Courts below held that plaintiff-petitioner was religious, charitable/trust, hence provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable on the building in dispute. However, Revisional Court allowed the revision and dismissed the suit, firstly, on the ground that suit could not be filed by Attorney and secondly, notice of termination of tenancy was not valid. 6. Under Section 3(j) of the Act, landlord is defined as : “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.” 7. The tenant may very well plead that there is no power of attorney in favour of alleged attorney of the landlord, who has filed the suit, i.e. factum of power of attorney, may be disputed by the tenant. However, the validity of power of attorney cannot be questioned by the tenant. A resolution of the Trust Board dated 9.12.1986 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner authorising Swami Goverdhan Rangacharya Ji Maharaj to take legal proceedings with respect to the properties of the diety and for the said purpose, authority was also conferred upon him to appoint attorney. For filing suits and other legal proceedings and for doing pairvi therein, in pursuance of said resolution, Swami Goverdhan Rangacharya Ji Maharaj executed power of attorney in favour of Ram Kishan on 10.4.1989. Shri Ram Kishan filed the suit as mentioned above. The tenant asserted that the resolution was not signed by requisite number of trustees. None of the trustees ever objected to the said resolution. It was not, therefore, permissible for the tenant to question the validity thereof. In the affairs of the trust and its management, tenant of a building of the trust has got no right to meddle. Moreover, the tenant in his written statement as summarised in Para-4 of the judgment of Revisional Court stated that workers (Karkunam) of Rangji Maharaj enhanced the rent in 1993 and also thereafter. In the affairs of the trust and its management, tenant of a building of the trust has got no right to meddle. Moreover, the tenant in his written statement as summarised in Para-4 of the judgment of Revisional Court stated that workers (Karkunam) of Rangji Maharaj enhanced the rent in 1993 and also thereafter. Through a resolution of the Board, Swami Goverdhan Rangacharya Ji Maharaj was appointed as managing trustee of the Swami Rangji Maharaj Trust Board. 8. The High Court had on 13.4.1926 decided First Appeals No. 355 and 422 of 1922 and First Appeals No. 11 and 168 of 1923 directing that Sri Swami Rangji Maharaj be reinstated in the office of gaddi-nashin and future administration of the trust be carried on in accordance with scheme of management appended thereto. In Para-4 of the scheme of administration, it was provided that the trust shall be administered by a committee consisting gaddi-nashin of the Shri Rangji temple for time being as President and six other members. In Para-11 of the said scheme, it was provided that trust committee shall, in all matters connected with the trust, follow the directions given by the author of the trust in the supplementary deed of 3.11.1873. In Para-12, it was provided that trust committee shall make suitable provision for religious ceremonies and preservation, protection and repair of the trust property, collection of the rents, dues, offerings, arrears, outstanding. In Para-14, it was provided that trust committee shall appoint a manager to look after the internal administration of the trust and in Para-15, it was provided that manager shall be the ex-officio Secretary of the trust committee. 9. There is nothing either in the trust deed dated 3.11.1873 or in the judgment of the High Court dated 13.4.1926, which prohibits appointment of attorney to file the suit for eviction of tenants. 10. Accordingly, the finding of the revisional Court that attorney could not be appointed to file the suit or that the attorney was illegally appointed is clearly erroneous in law. In this regard, reference may be made to the authority of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 3 , United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar. In the said case, Supreme Court has held that suit filed by Bank for recovery of loan cannot be dismissed on the technical ground that plaint was not signed and verified by the competent person. 11. In the said case, Supreme Court has held that suit filed by Bank for recovery of loan cannot be dismissed on the technical ground that plaint was not signed and verified by the competent person. 11. I have held in 2003(2) ARC 730, Trust S.L.N. Dev v. A.D.J. that some or even one trustee can file suit for eviction of tenant of trust property. In the instant case Swami Goverdhan Rangacharya was not only trustee but managing trustee. He could therefore very well file the suit either by himself or through his attorney. 12. The Revisional Court held the notice to be invalid on the ground that the rent demanded in the said notice had been remitted by the tenant through money order within a month and the money order was. wrongly refused by the landlord. Through the notice, tenancy had been terminated and arrears of rent had been demanded. Payment of arrears of rent within a month does not affect the validity of notice in respect of termination of tenancy. As the Revisional Court itself held that U.P. Rent Control Act was not applicable to the building in dispute, hence remitting or not remitting the rent was immaterial for the purposes of eviction. If Rent Control Act does not apply, then tenant is liable to be evicted after termination of tenancy even if he is not defaulter for a single month. Finding of Revisional Court to the effect that notice was invalid or became invalid after payment of rent by tenant is therefore erroneous in law .and is hereby set aside. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside and judgment and decree of Trial Court is restored. 14. Tenant-respondent is granted six months time to vacate provided that : 1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the Trial Court to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six month, he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-petitioner. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-respondent to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-respondent to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the trial Court and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-petitioner. 3. Within one month from today tenant shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date before trial Court for immediate payment to landlord petitioner. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-respondent shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or decreetal amount and Rs. 6,000/- are not deposited within one month then tenant-respondent shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and Rs. 6,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. ————