JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were heard at length on 15.2.2018 and 28.3.2018 and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners were noted in the orders. 3. Learned counsel for defendant-tenant/petitioners in the aforenoted four petition has submitted that facts in all these four petitions are similar and the plaintiffs are common. Therefore, all the petitions may be heard together. With his consent the petition No. 869 of 2018 is treated to be the leading petition. 4. The petition No. 869 of 2018 has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 29.11.2017 in SCC Revision No. 34 of 2013 (Ram Narayan v. Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Vrindavan and another) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, and the judgment dated 28.2.2013 in SCC Suit No. 122 of 1998 (Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Vrindavan and another v. Ram Narayan) passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra, whereby the decree of eviction has been passed against the defendant-tenant/petitioner for his eviction from shop No. 18/146/2, Purani Mandi, Tajganj, Agra and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent/landlord has been decreed. 5. The petition No. 870 of 2018 has been filed by another defendant-tenant of Shop No. 19/99/03,Tanga Stand, Purani Mandi, Tajganj, Agra, against whom a decree of eviction has been passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Agra in SCC Suit No. 117 of 1998 (Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and another v. Ramashanker) and the SCC Revision No. 35 of 2013 (Ramashanker v.Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and another) filed by the defendant-tenant/petitioner has been dismissed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Court No. 16, Agra, by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2017. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to set aside the aforesaid two judgments. 6. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to set aside the aforesaid two judgments. 6. The petition No. 871 of 2018 has been filed by the tenant of shop No. 19/99/02,Tanga Stand, Tajganj, Agra, for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2013 in SCC Suit No. 115 of 1998 (Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and another v. Sahab Uddin), passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Agra and the judgment dated 29.11.2017 in SCC Revision No. 33 of 2013 (Sahab Uddin v. Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and another), passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 16, Agra. 7. The petition No. 872 of 2018 has been filed by the tenant of shop No. 19/99/01,Tanga Stand, Tajmahal, Agra, praying to set aside the judgment dated 28.2.2013 and the decree in SCC Suit No. 119 of 1998 (Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and another v. Siraj Uddin), passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra and the judgment dated 29.11.2017 in SCC Revision No. 32 of 2013 (Siraj Uddin v. Shree Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir and another), passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 16 Agra. Facts 8. Sri Swami Rangacharya Ji Maharaj was the author of the trust as expressed in the original deed of trust dated 16.1.1868 and the supplementary trust deed dated 3.11.1873. The trust comprised of the temple Sri Rangji situated at Vrindawan and all subordinate temples attached thereto and the villages, land, buildings, movable properties, other goods, articles, ornaments and properties etc. 9. First Appeal No. 355 of 1922 (Sri Swami Rangacharya Ji Maharaj v. Ganga Ram and others), First Appeal No. 422 of 1922, First Appeal Nos.11 and 168 of 1923 were decided by Judgment dated 13.4.1926. It was held that as per trust deed dated 3.11.1873 the entire properties belonged to plaintiff-respondent No. 3 which is a public, religious and charitable institution. These suits were filed under Section 92 C.P.C. and for control and management of the trust properties, this Court framed a scheme of management dated 13.4.1926, as under: “The Shri Rangji Temple Trust, Brindaban, ............... Scheme of Management. 1. This trust shall be called the Shri Rangji Temple Trust Brindaban. 2. These suits were filed under Section 92 C.P.C. and for control and management of the trust properties, this Court framed a scheme of management dated 13.4.1926, as under: “The Shri Rangji Temple Trust, Brindaban, ............... Scheme of Management. 1. This trust shall be called the Shri Rangji Temple Trust Brindaban. 2. The object of the Trust shall be : (a) to provide and arrange for the due performance of religious worship and services and the periodical observance of festivals and other customary ceremonies in the Shri Rangji Temple at Brindaban, according to the ritual and tenets of the Tingal Sampradaya of the Vaishnava faith. (b) to make and provide suitable arrangements for the convenience of worshippers and pilgrims, male, female, visiting the temple for the performance worship. (c) to provide and arrange for religious and spiritual teaching or instruction according to the tenets of the Tingal Sampradaya of the Vaishnava faith and (d) to do all other acts, as may from time to time be necessary, to carry out the intention of Shri Swami Rangacharya hereinafter called the author of the Trust, as expressed in the original Deed of Trust of the 16th January 1868 so far as it is in force, and the supplementary Deed of Trust of the 3rd November 1873, and the dasturul amal referred to therein. 3. The trust shall comprise : (a) The temple of Shri Rangji situated at Brindaban and all subordinate temples attached there to and the villages, land buildings, and other properties, moveable or immoveable, appertaining to the same, or endowed for its use. (b) All goods, articles, ornaments, utensils furniture, paraphernalia arrears, savings, dues, deposits, account books, documents, and other papers appertaining to the said temple, or to the properties endowed for its use and (c) All other properties acquired from the income of the trust or granted to or for the benefit of the deity known as Sri Thakur Rangji Maharaj installed in the said temple, or for the use of the temple or temples subordinate or appertaining thereto, including any gifts, presents, grants, offerings and the like made to the gaddinashin for the time being as such and not intended for his personal use or benefit. 4. 4. The Trust shall be administered by a Committee consisting of the gaddinashin of the Shri Rangji temple, Brindaban, for the time being, as president, and six other members, selected from among the followers of the Vaishnawa faith and preference shall be given in making such selection as far as it may be practicable, to persons belonging to the Tingal Sampradaya. 5. The first members of the Trust Committee shall be (1) Sri Swami Rangachariji, the grandson of the author of the Trust (2) Kunwar Sarju Prasad Narain Singh, landholder Baraon, District Allahabad. (3) L. Gobardhan Das Banker, Muttra. (4) Mahant Bhagwat Das, zamindar, Muttra, now residing in Daraganj, Allahabad (5) Rai Bahadur B. Ram Nath Rais and Zamindar, Muttra, (6) Babu Binode Behari Lal B.A. LL.B. Pleader, Mainpuri and (7) Chaube Baijnath Banker, Etawah. 6. Sri Swami Rangachariji is hereby appointed to the office of the gaddinashin, subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the supplementary Deed of Trust of the 3rd November 1873 and he shall act in that capacity with effect from the date on which he may resume charge of that office. But he shall be liable to removal on the happening of any of the contingencies specified in cl. (8) of the supplementary deed of Trust of the 3rd November 1873 by a resolution of the Trust Committee passed at a meeting to be specially convened for that purpose at which the gaddinashin. Whose conduct may be in question, shall not be entitled to vote or preside. 7. If any member of the trust Committee becomes an apostate from the Vaishnava faith or is found guilty of gross neglect or misconduct in the discharge of his duties, or becomes otherwise incapacitated for the discharge of his office, or fails to attend, without any reason, the meetings of Trust Committee for a period of two consecutive years, he shall be liable to removal by a resolution of the Trust Committee at a meeting to be called for the purpose at which the trustee aforesaid shall not be entitled to vote. 8. 8. On the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of the gaddinashin or trustee, by death, resignation, removal or otherwise, the remaining members of the Trust Committee shall have power to appoint a gaddinashin or trustee, as the case may be, to fill up such vacancy, in conformity with the wishes as far as practicable of the author of the Trust, as expressed in the supplementary deed of Trust of the 3rd November 1873 and the directions herein contained. If such appointment is not made by the trustees within a reasonable time the same may be made by the Hon’ble High Court on a motion made for the purpose by any of the trustees or beneficiaries. Any act done by the Trust Committee or the remaining Trustees while such vacancy or vacancies remain unfilled shall not subject to Rule 15 be regarded as invalid. 9. The Trust Committee shall meet as far as possible once in every quarter for the transaction of its business or more often, if necessary, and it shall prepare, prescribe and sanction the Budget for each year at least a month before the Diwali or commencement of that year, and at the end of every year it shall prepare a report giving an account of the administration of the Trust and a statement of its income and expenditure, and publish the same in such manner as may be deemed most suitable. 10. The Trust Committee shall have power to revise and fix from time to time the scale of the salaries, allowances and other expenditure prescribed by the dasturulamal or by the supplementary deed of Trust aforesaid, including the salary remuneration or allowances payable to the gaddinashin and the trustees or to the subordinate staff and the amount to be defrayed for any other purposes connected with the Trust. 11. 11. Except as otherwise provided, the 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 the 3rd November 1873 and the dasturlamal aforesaid and employ such staff and frame such rules or ....(paper torn) such directions regulating the duties, powers, appointment, punishment or dismissal of the staff and the rendition of accounts by them as may from time to time be considered necessary or delegate any of these powers to the manager to be appointed in the manner herein after provided. 12. The Trust Committee shall be responsible for making suitable provision and arrangement for the due performance of the religious worship, services ceremonies and other customary observances in the temple or temples appertaining to the Trust, the management of the Bhandar, the distribution of the sacred food and charity, the stay accommodation and conveniences of the Vaishnava Worshippers or pilgrims visiting the temple, the preservation protection custody and repair of the Trust property, the collection of the rents, dues offerings, arrears outstandings and other moneys due to the Trust the investment or application of the surplus income in a manner or for a purpose not inconsistent with the Trust, the maintenance and verification of inventories or stock books of goods, apparel, utensils, furniture, jewellery and other moveables appertaining to the Trust with descriptive particulars of their weight, value or marks of identity were necessary and generally for carrying out the objects and the intention of the author of the Trust in such manner as may from time to time appear suitable or necessary. 13. The accounts of the Trust shall be audited every year by a duly qualified or chartered accountant to be appointed by the Trust Committee and the report of the auditor shall be considered by the committee alongwith the annual report and the statement of the accounts and the balance sheet for the preceding year at its annual meeting. 14. 13. The accounts of the Trust shall be audited every year by a duly qualified or chartered accountant to be appointed by the Trust Committee and the report of the auditor shall be considered by the committee alongwith the annual report and the statement of the accounts and the balance sheet for the preceding year at its annual meeting. 14. The Trust Committee shall arrange to appoint a manager to look after the internal administration of the Trust, the protection and preservation of the Trust property and the collection of the rents, dues, outstandings and other payable to the Trust either in addition to or substitution of one or more of the posts of Munsarims referred to in the supplementary deed of Trust of the 3rd November 1873, for such period and on such salary and conditions as the committee may think proper. But preference shall be given so far as may be practicable in making such appointment to persons of the Vaishnava faith who have retired from Government service, or have had experience in managing landed estates. The first appointment of such manager shall be made by inviting applications by public advertisement and shall be subject to the approval of the Hon’ble High Court, to whom the names of at least three persons, selected in order of merit, with a description of their respective qualifications and fitness for the post, shall be submitted as soon as practicable. 15. The manager shall be the ex-officio secretary of the Trust Committee and he shall be entitled to address the Trust Committee on any subject appertaining to the Trust or its management, but he shall not be entitled to give any vote. 16. Three members shall form the quorum for a meeting of Trust Committee, but no quorum shall be necessary for an adjourned meeting. 17. If the gaddinashin is absent or unable to preside or precluded from presiding at any meeting of the Trust Committee any other member of the Trust Committee present may be elected to act in his place. 18. Three members shall form the quorum for a meeting of Trust Committee, but no quorum shall be necessary for an adjourned meeting. 17. If the gaddinashin is absent or unable to preside or precluded from presiding at any meeting of the Trust Committee any other member of the Trust Committee present may be elected to act in his place. 18. Subject to the directions and general control of the Trust committee the duty of the gaddinashin shall be (a) To arrange for the punctual and regular performance of the worship, services, ceremonies and other periodical celebrations in accordance with the tenets of the Tingal Sampradaya of the Vaishnava faith and the provisions of the deeds of Trust and the dasturulamal aforesaid, so far as the same may be in force, and can be carried out consistently with the directions of the Trust Committee. (b) To make suitable arrangements for the proper collection and custody of the offerings, gifts or presents made at the temple or to the deity Shri Thakur Rangji Maharaj installed therein. (c) To arrange for the distribution of the sacred food and charity in the manner directed by the author of the Trust. (d) To provide all necessary facilities and arrangements for the convenience of Vaishnava worshippers and pilgrims visiting the temple. (e) To provide and arrage for religious and spiritual teaching or instruction according to the tenets of the Tingal Sampradaya of the Baishnava faith and to help the manager in the administration of the temple the supervision of the work of the temple staff, and generally in the administration of the Trust and the preservation and protection of the temple property. 19. The manager shall (a) maintain or cause to be maintained a record of the proceedings of the Trust Committee (b) enter or cause to be entered in books to be kept by him or under his direction, full and true accounts of income and expenditure of the Trust, (c) maintain or ..... (paper torn).. 19. The manager shall (a) maintain or cause to be maintained a record of the proceedings of the Trust Committee (b) enter or cause to be entered in books to be kept by him or under his direction, full and true accounts of income and expenditure of the Trust, (c) maintain or ..... (paper torn).. to be maintained, an inventory of the Trust property incoming stock books of the furniture, goods, utensils, jewellery and other moveable property appertaining to the Trust with a description of the weight estimated value and other particulars thereof where necessary to be checked and verified every half year (d) provide for the safe custody of the jewelleries, valuables and monies belonging to the Trust, including the keys of the safe containing them and the ...(paper torn) of any moneys not likely to be immediately required in some reliable bank, (e) arrange for the annual repairs and the protection and preservation of the Trust property and (f) prepare the Financial Statement budget and Annual Report for each ensuing year. He shall also (g) Examine the past accounts and prepare a list of the rents, arrears outstandings or other moneys due to the Trust, and arrange to collect the same and outstandings and moneys as they fall due, (h) take all measures necessary to prevent extravagance or waste or misappropriation of the Trust funds, and (1) generally devise and adopt such other measures as may from time to time be necessary for the better management of the Trust. He shall further (j) examine the personal accounts of the gaddinashin and the trustees with the temple and the accounts of the moneys said to have been deposited by or due to the late Shri Swami Niwas Achari, the father of Shri Swami Ranga Achariji, and the salaries and allowances, if any, due to Shri Swami Rangachariji for the period during which he was in office and lay a report of the moneys, if any, due to or by the Trust on account of the same and the Trust Committee shall take such steps, for the recovery of what may be found due to the Trust from the persons liable for them as may be necessary and also determine the manner in which the moneys if any, found due by the said Sri Swami Rangachariji shall be recoverable by a set off against his salary or by instalments or otherwise, as may be thought proper. 20. The members of the committee shall have power to enquire into the propriety of the sale of a house called the Kunj effected by Shri Swami Rangachariji in favour of the trust in discharge of some of his liabilities in 1913 and to charge him with any undue benefit, which he might have received by the transaction by way of over valuation or otherwise, to be ascertained in such way as may be deemed most suitable. 21. It shall be open to the Trust Committee or any two members of the Trust Committee or any two other persons interested in the Trust to apply to the Hon’ble High Court for direction in regard to any matter not covered by this scheme, or for any modification of this scheme which may from time to time be considered necessary or desirable in the interest of the Trust or for the protection of the Trust property. Sd. Cecil Walsh, Sd. Kanhaiya Lal, The 13th April 1926 10. In Rai Ram Nath Bhargava Bahadur vs Sri Swami Goverdhan Rangacharia, AIR 1936 All 97: 1936 ALJ 398 (decided on 30.9.1935) a Division Bench of this Court declined to modify the aforequoted scheme of management of the plaintiff Trust. It observed that the scheme of management was part of decree in suit under Section 92 C.P.C. 11. It appears that subsequently a Civil Misc. It observed that the scheme of management was part of decree in suit under Section 92 C.P.C. 11. It appears that subsequently a Civil Misc. Application No. NIL under (Section 92 C.P.C.) dated 19.4.1967 (B. Kailash Narayan and others v. Sri Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Temple Trust Committee Vrindawan and others) was filed in First Appeal No. 355 of 1922 for modification of the aforequoted scheme and the said application was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 14.2.1968. 12. The defendants-petitioners are the tenants. SCC suits were filed for their eviction which were decreed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Agra. Aggrieved with the judgments passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Agra, the defendant-tenant/petitioners filed SCC Revisions which were dismissed as aforementioned. Aggrieved with the judgments of the revisional Court, the respective defendants-tenants/petitioners have filed the present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Submissions 13. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioners submits as under: (i) The plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 3 herein is the deity. Plaintiff No. 2/respondent No. 4 herein is a trust. Both are separate and distinct in the eyes of law. The disputed shops belongs to deity and not to the trust. Therefore, only the plaintiff-no.1/respondent No. 3 herein is the owner and landlord. There is no averment in the plaint that the plaintiffs are landlord of the disputed shops. (ii) Since the disputed shops belongs to the deity and not to the trust, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(1)(bb) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are not attracted. Therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 were applicable but the Courts below have committed a manifest error of law to hold that the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable in view of the Provisions of Section 2(1)(bb) of the Act observing that the plaintiffs are the Public Religious Institution/Trust. (iii) The plaintiffs are not a religious institution within the meaning of Section 3(s) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. (iv) The place where the plaintiff No. 1 is situate is not a place of public worship. Hence provisions of Section 2(1) (bb) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable. (iii) The plaintiffs are not a religious institution within the meaning of Section 3(s) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. (iv) The place where the plaintiff No. 1 is situate is not a place of public worship. Hence provisions of Section 2(1) (bb) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy of Bondilipuram and another v. Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, AIR 1963 SC 510 (para 24, 35) is relied. (v) The question of applicability of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is a serious matter which should not have been decided by the Courts below in a cursory manner as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra and another v. Sanatan Dharm Satsang Bhawan Adhyatmic Vidyalaya, 2012(3) ARC 251 (para 24 to 34). (vi) Original Trust deed was not filed in evidence by the plaintiffs and as such provisions of Section 90 A(2) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 as amended in U.P., Shall not be applicable. (vii) No resolution of trust has been passed for filing the SCC suits. (viii) Deity and the trust both are separate entities as evident from Clause 2(c) and 18(b) of the Scheme of Management (Annexure 1). Thus, deity is the landlord of the disputed property. Therefore, the exemption clause under Section 2(1)(bb) shall not be applicable. Consequently, the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 shall be applicable. To support his submissions he also referred to the description of plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint of Suit No. 122 of 1998, which describes Sri Thakur Rang Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir (plaintiff deity as plaintiff No. 1) and Sri Rangji Temple Trust as plaintiff No. 2. (ix) The rent was being paid by the defendant-tenant to Sri Thakur Rang JI Maharaj through money order. Therefore, the plaintiff No. 1 is the landlord. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sri 1008 Murti Bhagwanij Mahavir Swamiji Maharaj Virajman Mandir “Mahaveer Jain Bulli Kaur Mandir” Qusba Sarsawan, Saharanpur through Secretary and Treaserar and another v. Komal Prasad Jain (Dead) through L.Rs., 2010(79) ALR 610 (paras 10 and 12). Therefore, the plaintiff No. 1 is the landlord. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sri 1008 Murti Bhagwanij Mahavir Swamiji Maharaj Virajman Mandir “Mahaveer Jain Bulli Kaur Mandir” Qusba Sarsawan, Saharanpur through Secretary and Treaserar and another v. Komal Prasad Jain (Dead) through L.Rs., 2010(79) ALR 610 (paras 10 and 12). (x) Alternatively, Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if this Court upholds the impugned judgment, then a reasonable time may be granted to the defendant-tenant to vacate the disputed shop and to handover its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-landlord. The defendant-tenant is also ready to submit an undertaking on oath to the aforesaid effect before the concerned Court below and also to deposit a reasonable amount for use and occupation of the disputed shop for the period which may be provided by the Court for vacating it. Discussion and Findings 14. With the consent of learned counsel for the defendants/tenants/petitioners as recorded in the order dated 15.2.2018 following questions were framed for determination in these petitions: (a) Whether the plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 3 herein and the plaintiff No. 2/respondent No. 4 herein are separate and distinct persons being the deity and the trust? (b) Whether the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are applicable on the facts of the present case? (c) Whether non filing of the original trust deed in evidence by the plaintiffs shall render the provisions of Section 90A(2) of the Indian Evidence Act to be not applicable on the facts of the present case? (d) Whether the impugned judgments have been passed correctly and lawfully? Question No. (a) : 15. “Whether the plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 3 herein and the plaintiff No. 2/respondent No. 4 herein are separate and distinct persons being the deity and the trust?” Perusal of the aforequoted scheme of Management of the plaintiff No. 2/respondent No. 4 herein dated 13.4.1926 clearly reveals that the Trust comprises of the temple Sri Rangji situate at Vrindawan and all subordinate temples attached thereto and the villages, land, buildings and other properties movable and immovable etc. Trust is administered by a committee consisting of the gaddinashine of Sri Rangji Temple Vrindawan, for the time being as President and six other members, selected from amongst the followers of the Vaishnava faith. Trust is administered by a committee consisting of the gaddinashine of Sri Rangji Temple Vrindawan, for the time being as President and six other members, selected from amongst the followers of the Vaishnava faith. Clause 12 of the Scheme of Management describes the responsibilities of the trust committee including the preservation, protection, custody, repair of the Trust properties and collection of rent and arrears etc. The entire Scheme of Management appears to have been framed for Sri Thakur Rangji Maharaj Virajman Mandir for carrying out religious worship and services and observance of festivals and other ceremonies in Shri Rangji temple and matters related thereto. 16. As per Clause 3 of the Scheme of Management as aforequoted the trust comprised of the entire properties including the temple and the disputed shops. The object of the trust as per scheme of management includes to provide and arrange for the due performance of religious worships and services and the periodical observance of festivals and other customary ceremonies in Sri Rangji Temple at Vrindawan, according to the rituals and tenets of Tingle Sampradaya of Vaishnav faith. Since the case in hand relates only to eviction proceedings of defendants-tenants, therefore, the scope of inquiry in the present case is limited to find out the landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant-tenants. Since it is undisputed that the disputed property comprised in the plaintiff No. 2 - trust of which the main beneficiary is the plaintiff No. 1-temple and since the eviction suit was filed by both the plaintiffs against the defendants-tenants, therefore, it is not necessary to enter into the question as to whether the deity and the trust are distinct persons ? Since the temple and the trust both were plaintiffs and also since it is undisputed that the trust comprise of the entire properties and the Trust Committee has been entrusted with the responsibility for preservation, protection, custody and repair of the Trust properties and collection of rents and arrears etc. and the rent was collected accordingly, hence the plantiff No. 2/respondent No. 4 herein is undoubtedly landlord which is a public charitable and religious institution. Therefore, the Court below has not committed any error of law to hold that the plaintiffs are owner and landlord of the disputed property. Question No. (b) 17. and the rent was collected accordingly, hence the plantiff No. 2/respondent No. 4 herein is undoubtedly landlord which is a public charitable and religious institution. Therefore, the Court below has not committed any error of law to hold that the plaintiffs are owner and landlord of the disputed property. Question No. (b) 17. Section 2(bb) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 provides that nothing in this Act shall apply to any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution. Scheme of Management of the trust as framed by this Court as aforequoted leaves no manner of doubt that the plaintiff is a public charitable and religious institution. 18. In the case of plaintiffs itself being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66450 of 2005 (Sri Thakur Rangji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Vrindawan through Sri Swami Govardhan Rangacharyaji Maharaj ... District - Mathura v. Sri R.D. Sharma), 2007(7) ADJ 270 , this Court found that the plaintiff-respondent is a public religious and charitable institution. In the matter of the plaintiffs in Rai Ram Nath Bhargava Bahadur (supra) the Division Bench of this Court observed that the Scheme of Management (aforequoted) was part of decree in the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. Section 92 provides for institution of a suit by the Advocate General, or two or more person having interest in the trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. From the observations made in the impugned judgment it also appears that the Central Government has notified the plaintiff temple, vide notification published in the Gazette; to be a place of public religious worship. Thus the plaintiff is undisputedly a public charitable and religious institution which is outside the purview of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Hence provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable on the disputed building. 19. In Sri Thakur Rangji Maharaj (supra) this Court also noted various paragraphs of the aforequoted scheme of management and held that 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. 19. In Sri Thakur Rangji Maharaj (supra) this Court also noted various paragraphs of the aforequoted scheme of management and held that 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. This Court observed that it has been held “in Trust SLN Dev v. A.D.J., 2003 (2) ARC 730 that some or even one trustee can file a suit for eviction of a tenant of trust property. This Court further held that 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. In the instant case Swami Govardhan Rangacharya was not only trustee but the managing trustee. He could, therefore, very well file the suit either by himself or through his attorney.” 20. Thus, in the present set of facts, I have found that plaintiff is a public charitable and religious institution. Therefore, in view of Section 2(bb) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is not applicable. Question No. (c) & (d) 21. The contention of the defendant-tenant/petitioners that the original trust deed was not filed in evidence by the plaintiffs and as such the provisions of Section 90 A (2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as amended in U.P. shall not be applicable, deserves to be rejected. 22. The fact as noted above leave no manner of doubt that there is a trust of which the Scheme of Management has been framed by this Court as aforequoted. To verify this fact, by order dated 26.2.2018, this Court directed the office to put up the present petition with the records of First Appeal No. 355 and 422 of 1922 and First Appeal No. 11 and 168 of 1923 decided by judgment dated 13.4.1926. In compliance to the order, the office has placed the available records of First Appeal No. 355 of 1922, in which the scheme of Management framed by this Court and an order dated 14.2.1968 in Civil Misc. Application No. NIL of 1967 (under Section 92 C.P.C.) dated 19.4.1967, First Appeal No. 355 of 1922, is available alongwith certain other papers. In compliance to the order, the office has placed the available records of First Appeal No. 355 of 1922, in which the scheme of Management framed by this Court and an order dated 14.2.1968 in Civil Misc. Application No. NIL of 1967 (under Section 92 C.P.C.) dated 19.4.1967, First Appeal No. 355 of 1922, is available alongwith certain other papers. Before the trial Court the plaintiffs have filed in evidence copy of the trust deed and a copy of Scheme of Management dated 13.4.1926 and several other documents vide list 22 Ga. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff is a religious and charitable institution and is being managed under a scheme of management, dated 13.4.1926 framed by this Court. 23. Both the Courts below have found that there was a landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant-tenant and the plaintiffs have proved that a notice determining the tenancy was given to the defendant-tenant. Even the defendant-tenant has admitted in his cross-examination the receipt of the notice. Despite determination of the tenancy, the defendant-tenants have not vacated and handed over the disputed shops to the plaintiffs. 24. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned orders. Therefore, all the four petitions deserve to be dismissed. 25. In view of the aforesaid, the matters under Article 227 No. 869 of 2018, No. 870 of 2018, No. 871 of 2018 and No. 872 of 2018 are dismissed. 26. Considering the alternative submissions of learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioners, the defendant-tenant/petitioners are granted six months time to vacate the disputed shops provided that; each of the defendant-tenant files an undertaking on oath before the Judge Small Cause Court to the effect that on or before expiry of the period of six months from today he will willingly vacate the disputed shop and shall handover its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiffs-landlord. Each petitioners shall also deposit sum of Rs. 12,000/- for use and occupation of the disputed shop for a period from today till the expiry of six months. Apart from above, the defendant-tenant/petitioners shall also deposit the entire decretal amount within a period of one month from today. Each petitioners shall also deposit sum of Rs. 12,000/- for use and occupation of the disputed shop for a period from today till the expiry of six months. Apart from above, the defendant-tenant/petitioners shall also deposit the entire decretal amount within a period of one month from today. In the event the condition as aforementioned are not complied with by the defendant-tenant/petitioners within the stipulated period, then the protection as given above, shall automatically stand vacated. 27. In the event the vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed shops are not handed over by the respective defendants-petitioners to the plaintiff immediately on expiry of six months from today, then the plaintiffs shall be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings against the defendants-tenants/petitioners including the proceedings for contempt.