JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.—Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard in the revised list. He was directed to give a written submission and also inform Sri N.C. Rajvanshi Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.K. Rajvanshi, the counsel appearing for respondents. 2. Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate, has filed his written submission on 14.9.2009 along with original letter duly served upon Sri M.K. Rajvanshi junior to Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, the counsel for respondents on 11.9.2009 itself. No written submission on behalf of respondents has been filed so far. 3. The judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Saharanpur, confirming the judgment and order dated 20.3.2001 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Saharanpur, is impugned in the instant writ petition. 4. Plaintiff/petitioners claimed to be landlord of premises in dispute and plaintiff No. 1 is a religious institution within the meaning of Section 3 (S) and also public charitable institution within the meaning of Section 3 (r) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. Suit was instituted on behalf of Shri 1008 Murti Bhagwan Mahavir Swamiji Maharaj, which is admitted to be a Jain Temple. Respondent is a tenant of part of the entire premises owned by Shri 1008 Murti Bhagwan Mahavir Swamiji Maharaj. A notice dated 8/10.7.1995 under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act was served upon respondent-tenant late Komal Prasad Jain terminating his tenancy. It was clearly stated that building is exempted from the Act also in view of provision of Section 2 (bb) of Amended Act No. 5 of 1995. Notice was given in the name of Secretary and Treasurer late Beni Prasad Jain. Notice was replied, the tenanted accommodation being a public religious institution and thereby exemption from the Act was denied. It was also specifically denied that there is any default of payment of rent and also demand of mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day. 6. Subsequently SCC Suit No. 111 of 1995 was instituted. Defendant/respondents appeared and filed written statement and also denied relationship of landlord and tenant. Authority of late Beni Prasad was also disputed. Respondents claimed that plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and tenancy cannot be terminated by means of notice. 200/- per day. 6. Subsequently SCC Suit No. 111 of 1995 was instituted. Defendant/respondents appeared and filed written statement and also denied relationship of landlord and tenant. Authority of late Beni Prasad was also disputed. Respondents claimed that plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and tenancy cannot be terminated by means of notice. It was also alleged that property is not registered as a “Religious institution”, therefore, no benefit of Section 2 (bb) of the Act can be availed by the petitioners. 7. A number of issues were framed. Issue No. 1 relates to a question whether there was landlord and tenant relationship in existence between plaintiffs and defendants. This question was decided in affirmative. The Judge Small Causes Court was of the considered view that relationship between plaintiffs and defendants is that of landlord and tenant. However, issue No. 3 which relates to a question whether Beni Prasad was authorized to collect rent and institute a suit on behalf of plaintiffs or not, was decided against plaintiffs and since authority of Beni Prasad was negated consequently termination of tenancy by means of notice sent on direction of Beni Prasad was held to be invalid. There was no issue in dispute regarding service of notice to the respondents. In fact, it was admitted by defendants that they have also sent reply notice disputing assertion made in the notice. Next issue was on the question whether plaintiff was religious and charitable institution and applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972. 8. The Court below was of the view that no such document has been brought on record to substantiate and establish that there was any trust deed, therefore, the Judge Small Causes Court recorded finding that provision of Section 2 (1) (bb) is not attracted. Suit was consequently dismissed after deciding the aforesaid issues against plaintiffs. Revisional Court confirmed judgment and order of the Judge Small Causes Court in SCC Revision No. 18 of 2001 vide judgment and order dated 14.7.2003. 9. Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate, has challenged all theses findings in the instant writ petition. Komal Prasad Jain was defendant No. 1 in suit. Extract of his statement in the Court is annexed as annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Cross examination was conducted on 28.2.2001. He has admitted unequivocally that he is a tenant of the disputed portion since last 45 years. Komal Prasad Jain was defendant No. 1 in suit. Extract of his statement in the Court is annexed as annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Cross examination was conducted on 28.2.2001. He has admitted unequivocally that he is a tenant of the disputed portion since last 45 years. He had taken accommodation on rent. Bulli Kaur Mandir is owner of the property. It is known as Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Ji and Shri 1008 Murti Bhagwan. This Temple was constructed by Bulli Kaur in the name of Bhagwan Mahavir Ji, who is the owner. He has admitted that Bhagwan Mahavir Ji is owner of the Temple and its welfare is taken care of by Jain community. No specific committee was constituted but anyone from Jain Samaj takes over and whoever collects the income, takes care of the expenditure on day-to-day basis. Electricity bills etc. are also deposited by the same person. There is a Mali who opens and closes the Temple as well as takes care of the cleanliness. He has also admitted that at the relevant time when suit was instituted, the Temple was being taken care by Beni Prasad. 10. I have perused the entire statement and admission of the defendant, therefore, I am of the view that once it is concluded that Beni Prasad was managing affairs of the Temple, he was realizing rent from defendant, admittedly finding of fact is that there exists relationship between landlord and tenant, it is evident that Courts below were wayward in taking a contrary decision and dismissed the suit cursorily. In view of this admission, there remains no doubt that Beni Prasad was the person concerned who was taking care. He was the person entitled and had authority to take care of affairs of the institution. 11. Section 2 (2) (bb) of the Act provides that any building belonging to or vest in public charitable and public religious institution is exempted from application of the Act. Exemption as contained under Section 2 (bb) of the Act, interpretation of private endowment or public endowment came up for interpretation in Ram Dularey v. IVth Additional District Judge, Varanasi 1996 (2) ARC 459 in relation to in Amending Act, which came in Section 2 (bb) of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995. The High Court interpreted provisions of U.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of disposition of Property Act, 1962). The High Court interpreted provisions of U.P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of disposition of Property Act, 1962). A religious institution means a Math or Temple established or to be established in future with a religious object for a public purpose and includes all property moveable or immoveable belonging to, or worship in, a Math or Temple, or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and also includes the idols installed in the Math or Temple, clothes, ornaments and things for decoration etc. The basic test is who are the beneficiaries of the endowed property. If beneficiaries are general public or a section of the same and not a determination body of individuals it can and should be treated as a public endowment or a public trust. In my view if it is established that building in question is a religious institution and is meant for public charitable purposes, no further elucidation is required. 12. Admittedly, in the present case, defendant No. 1 himself gives unequivocal assertion that Beni Prasad was looking after property, it was he who used to collect rent and at the time when suit was instituted, he was managing affairs of the Temple, therefore, there is not an iota of doubt and the Courts below tried to carve out something different from what defendant himself admitted. Both the Courts below failed to look into the most relevant aspect that property in question is a Temple, which has been admitted by defendant-tenant in his examination in chief, therefore, the Temple in question is covered within the purview of Section 3 (S) of the Act “Religious institution)” means Temple, Math, Mosque, Church, Gurudwara or any other place of public worship. Since admittedly building in question is a Temple within meaning of Section 3 (S) of the Act, automatically it comes within purview of Section 2 (bb) of the Act. 13. The clear admission is that ‘Jain Community’ was the beneficiary, both the Courts below failed to consider this aspect as well as the fact that defendant No. 1 himself admitted that Beni Prasad was realizing rent, therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant stands established and it was automatically the person maintaining the institution had right to give a direction for notice of termination of tenancy. The Courts below have not recorded any other reason for coming to a conclusion that notice is invalid save for the fact that Beni Prasad had no right which is not correct and without any basis as has already been observed in the foregoing paragraphs. Tenant-respondents are admittedly in possession of premises in question at monthly rent of Rs. 36/- per month, which was not paid since year 1995. The instant writ petition is pending since quite a long time and by getting the suit nipped at the bud stage, they are enjoying fruits without paying a single penny. Landlord, which is charitable and religious institution is not able to realize rent. Admittedly, there is a relationship of landlord and tenant and Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable. Notice stands duly served. The Courts below were liable to proceed to decide the suit as suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. 14. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that judgment and orders of the Courts below cannot be left to stand as it is. Both the judgment and orders are quashed. The instant writ petition is allowed. 15. Matter is sent back to the Judge Small Causes Court to decide the question of arrears of rent and other related question after taking evidence within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The Court below shall refrain from rehearing the matter on the question of maintainability of the suit. ————