JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. This is a writ petition, filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment and order dated 01.12.2006 passed by Small Cause Court in Revision No. 04 of 2004. The petitioner is a tenant of the accommodation in question and respondent No. 2 – U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahman Association is the landlord of the same. 2. Heard Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the landlord i.e. U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahman Association has filed a suit being SCC Suit No. 28 of 1997 before the Small Cause Court, Haridwar. In the said suit it was stated that the plaintiff is a public charitable institution, which runs a Dharamshala in Haridwar. A part of Dharamshala was given to the father of the petitioner on rent. After the demise of the father, the tenancy devolved to Smt. Parmeshwari Devi and his son – Sanjay Agarwal (present petitioner). 4. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that earlier the private respondent had filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as “Act No. XIII of 1972”) for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question for his bona fide need. During the pendency of the said application before the Prescribed Authority, an amendment was inserted under the Act No. XIII of 1972 wherein certain buildings belonging to public charitable trust were exempted from the purview of Act No. XIII of 1972. The amendment, which was incorporated w.e.f. 26.09.1994 under U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 reads asunder:- “2. Exemptions from operation of Act (1) (bb) any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution.” 5. The landlord, therefore, simply sought withdrawal of the application, which was consequently, dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, a suit (referred above) was again filed by the private respondent. 6. Needless to say that a heavy burden lay upon the plaintiff himself to prove that the building in question is a public charitable trust or public religious institution. The landlord, therefore, simply sought withdrawal of the application, which was consequently, dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, a suit (referred above) was again filed by the private respondent. 6. Needless to say that a heavy burden lay upon the plaintiff himself to prove that the building in question is a public charitable trust or public religious institution. Definitely such a contention was made in the plaint and in order to substantiate his argument, the plaintiff further stated that the building in question is a Dharamshala and it has further been argued that the registered memorandum of the society was also placed before the trial court. A copy of the same is also produced before this Court, which is now a part of record. In the said document, the objections of the society are as under:- (a) To propagate and promote the knowledge of Sanskrit amongst the Dwijs twice-born classes in a nonsectarian spirit. (b) To carry on the Sanskrit College already established and carried on by the Association at Hardwar in perpetuity and with due regard. (c) To manage duly the Paliwal Dharmashala, Hardwar constructed by Late Pt. Duva Karan Maudgalaya. (d) To propagate the Vedic-Shastric and Pauranic rituals amongst the Paliwal Brahmans. (e) To take into possession, administer, acquire, exchange and apply the properties both movable and immovable, gifted or donated or subscribed by the members of the Paliwal community from time to time in accordance with the wishes of the donors and direction of the Association to the protection of the orphans, the spread of education of their own religious propaganda and other cognates objects approved by the Association. (f) To give effects to the wishes of the donors endowing funds for religious and charitable institutions. 7. On these stated objects of the society, an objection has been raised at the hands of the present petitioner that on the basis of these stated objects, it cannot be said that the landlord society is a public charitable trust or public religious institution, as admittedly the society is only for the benefit of a particular sub-caste of Brahmans i.e. “Paliwal”. In other words, the beneficiary of the so-called trust would only be a private individual hence such a society cannot be called as a ‘private charitable trust’ or even a ‘private religious institution’. 8. In other words, the beneficiary of the so-called trust would only be a private individual hence such a society cannot be called as a ‘private charitable trust’ or even a ‘private religious institution’. 8. Whereas in a public charitable trust the beneficiaries are an uncertain mass of General public, in a private charitable trust, the beneficiaries are defined individual or a group of individuals. This, however, would not mean that if the beneficiaries belong to a definite group or sub-caste, it would take the shape of a private trust. Even in such matters and even in case of such beneficiaries, the trust itself will continue to be a public trust. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner that the society on this ground cannot be called a public charitable trust and hence cannot be given a benefit of exemption under the purview of Act No. XIII of 1972, does not seem to be correct. The essential difference between a public charitable trust and a private charitable trust has to be seen in their beneficiaries the two trusts seek to benefit. As referred above in case of a public charitable trust, the beneficiaries are not ascertainable whereas in a private charitable trust the beneficiaries are clearly ascertainable individuals. This distinction has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deoki Nandan Vs Murlidhar & others reported in AIR 1957 SC 133 . The relevant para of the same reads as under:- “The distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further elaborate this law in Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji Vs S.P. Sahi, Special Officer-in-charge of Hindu Religious Trusts & others reported in AIR 1959 SC 951 as follows:- “To put it briefly, the essential distinction is that in a public trust the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons, either the public at large or some considerable portion of it answering a particular description; in a private trust the beneficiaries are definite and ascertained individuals or who within a definite time can be definitely ascertained. The fact that the uncertain and fluctuating body of persons is a section of the public following a particular religious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certain religious persuasion would not make any difference in the matter and would not make the trust a private trust” 10. The findings of the trial as to the nature of the trust also not correct in view of the position of law, explained above. However, a heavy burden still lay upon the plaintiff to prove that the society is actually a public charitable trust or public religious trust, i.e. it is doing such activities, and this could only be established by its deed and not by the nomenclature it carried. 11. When D.W1 was examined in the Court below, he had said that in the building what is being run is not a Dharamshala but a hotel by the name and style of “Paliwal Hotel”. This statement of DW1 was accepted as true by the prosecution witness i.e. P.W.1. Hence there is an admission in the trial court that a private hotel is being run in the premises. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlords, on the other hand, has taken this Court and has tried to place certain documents, which are not part of the pleadings by stating that certain applications were moved by the tenant himself before the court, admitting the position that the building in dispute is a Dharamshala and which are the part of lower court records. 13. On the other hand, apart from the statements of DW1 and PW1 it has also come in the order of the trial court as well, which shows that the plaintiff has not been able to discharge his burden, as to the institute being run for a charitable purpose i.e. where education is being imparted free of cost yet he failed to show any document to this effect during trial. Against the order dated 11.05.2004 passed by the trial court which held that plaintiff is not a charitable trust. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a revision before the revisonal court, however, on mere conjecture and surmises revisional court has held that since it was stated in the pleadings by the plaintiff that the society is a public charitable trust under a charge of definite category of Brahman it has to be considered public charitable trust. 14. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a revision before the revisonal court, however, on mere conjecture and surmises revisional court has held that since it was stated in the pleadings by the plaintiff that the society is a public charitable trust under a charge of definite category of Brahman it has to be considered public charitable trust. 14. The finding of the revisional court is not only perverse but also does not reflect from the records of the proceedings. In order to substantiate that a particular association or a society is performing the work of a public charitable trust what has to be seen is the actual work being performed by the society and the actual beneficiaries from the trust. Merely because the trust is called a public charitable trust, it was not made it a public trust. Similarly, merely because an image of ideal has been placed in the building, it cannot give the building as the shape of a temple or religious institution. In order to bring it within the definition of public charitable trust or public religious trust, heavy burden was cast upon the plaintiff to have proved that the society is actually performing as a trust. 15. Since the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff has actually discharged its burden of placing entire evidence before the trial court as well as revisional court, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had failed to discharge his burden though this may be reflected from the two orders of the courts below. 16. In view thereof, the order dated 01.12.2006 passed by the revisional court as well as order dated 11.05.2004 passed by the trial court are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration. Both the parties are at liberty to produce additional evidence, if any, before the revisional court in order to substantiate their claim. 17. It is further made clear that since this matter has already taken a lot of time, as the matter is pending since 2006, revisional court is hereby directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to the cooperation of both the parties.