ORDER : T. Rajani, J. 1. This revision petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order, dated 19.12.2018, passed in CF No. 8919 of 2018 in SOP-on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur, by virtue of which the Court below rejected the petition filed under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, (for short, "the Act") to declare the lease deed, dated 19.3.2015, executed by the 1st respondent-Church in favour of the 4th respondent on 20.3.2015 as null and void, by considering that the said dispute does not fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act. 2. Questioning the impugned order, this revision is preferred on the grounds that the lower Court erred in understanding the correct purport and object of Section 23 of the Act, which makes it clear that any dispute arising among the committee or the members of the society is amenable to the jurisdiction of the District Court and the lower Court erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. 3. Based on the above grounds, the revision petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order. 4. The lone point, hence, is whether the dispute raised in this petition falls within the purview of Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act. In the foremost it would be beneficial to have a look at Section 23 of the Act, which reads as follows: "23. Dispute regarding management:-In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit." 5. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the dispute, to fall under the above provision, has to be among the committee or the members of the society and it should be in relation to the affairs of the society. Two aspects fall for consideration before this Court to decide the issue of maintainability of the petition under Section 23 of the Act before the District Court. Two aspects fall for consideration before this Court to decide the issue of maintainability of the petition under Section 23 of the Act before the District Court. Whether the dispute is among the committee or the members of the society and whether it pertains to the affairs of the society. That the dispute is among the members is not in dispute. Dispute is only with regard to the said dispute being in relation to the affairs of the society. 6. The averments in the petition would become pertinent to decide the nexus between the relief prayed for and Section 23 of the Act. The relief prayed for is to declare the lease deed, dated 19.3.2015 as null and void. The grounds on which the said lease deed is sought to be declared as null and void would also be material in deciding the jurisdiction. 7. The petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of Andhra Evangelical Church (AEL) being a member of the said Church, which figured as 1st respondent in the petition. The Evangelical Lutheran Church, America (ELCA) is the original owner of all the properties of AEL Church. ELCA transferred all these properties in favour of the Council for the Indian Mission of United Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Since the UELCA was holding these properties as trustees for ELCA, on transfer to AELC, it also has been holding these missionary properties as trustees, which is evidenced by a registered partition deed in Doc. No. 706/1958. The origin of the properties at present vested in the hands of the present management of AELC, having nucleus of trust. The properties were purchased out of the funds raised by the donations and subscriptions and trust is created and those in management and in-charge of such properties are impressed as trustees of trust properties. As per the constitution the Constitution of AELC, Article-VI, there are three trustees namely, the President, the Vice-President and the Treasurer. It was stated in the Church Constitution that the trustees have no power of management of Funds & Properties of the Society. Unfortunately, the trustees and the Council Members are assuming themselves as absolute owners of the church properties and think that they can do anything and everything by passing a resolution even without proper manual recording, forgetting that they are mere trustees. Unfortunately, the trustees and the Council Members are assuming themselves as absolute owners of the church properties and think that they can do anything and everything by passing a resolution even without proper manual recording, forgetting that they are mere trustees. The governing body and the trustees especially respondents 1 to 3 are in the habit of bringing before the Executive Council, without any power or authority, some proposals and manage to get them approved by the Council. The agenda and resolutions of the Council made vide LCM 474 is an example of this type of irregularities committed by the Executive Council and trustees. As against the above principles the so-called LCM 474 was brought into existence through mischievous fabrication done by respondents 1 to 3 to distribute costly site at Becker compound situated on the main road leading to the capital city Amaravati. The then treasurer, AELC Mr. P.J. Nelson, executed a lease agreement in favour of one Y.A.P. Sagar for a period of five years, to start St. Paul's Residential English Medium School and Junior College only in VTI Hostel Buildings and vacant site in Becker compound in an extent of Acs. 2-00. The then treasurer of AELC, before expiry of the previous agreement, entered into another lease agreement with Y.A.P. Sagar for another 15 years. Even though 11 years had lapsed, the site and buildings were not registered. Y.A.P. Sagar requested the AEL Church through his letter to enable him to construct new college buildings or commercial complex in the leased premises. The Executive Council vide document LCM 418 dated 16.10.2006 passed a resolution authorising the President and the Treasurer to register the site and buildings in favour of Y.A.P. Sagar but no action has been taken. Another representation on 1.12.2014, requesting the Moderator-Bishop, AELC and the Treasurer, AELC to implement the actions of the Executive Council vide LCM 418, was given. The trustees executed a lease agreement and registered a lease deed in favour of KRK Chandra Ventures Pvt. Ltd., represented by Y.A.P. Sagar. In the first place any LCM should be approved in the next Council meeting by the Executive Council. A mere perusal of the said minutes would reveal that the whole minutes are concocted and fabricated. 8. These are the averments in the petition, on the basis of which the lease deed is sought to be declared as null and void. In the first place any LCM should be approved in the next Council meeting by the Executive Council. A mere perusal of the said minutes would reveal that the whole minutes are concocted and fabricated. 8. These are the averments in the petition, on the basis of which the lease deed is sought to be declared as null and void. The execution of lease deed is done only by invoking the powers that were given to the Treasurer under the Bye Laws of the Society. The lease deed in respect of the properties held by the Church and anything concerned in such property would amount to an affair pertaining to the church. The lower Court though relied on two judgments, which concluded saying that the issues involved in the cases dealt with by the Apex Court in the said judgments relate to the affairs of the Society, did not choose to consider that the execution of lease deed by the Treasurer of the 1st respondent as business pertaining to the Society and rejected the application. 9. The first case is reported in R.S. Sunder Rao v. K. Rama Rao, President, Gandhipuram Coop. Building Society, Gandhipuram, Rajahmundry, 1983 0 LS (SRC) 142 : 1983 0 Supreme 186 (AP). The dispute therein related to supply of water to a member although the said member has let out the premises to another. Even then the Supreme Court held that the supply of water to the Member is within the scope of the dispute touching the business of the society and the proceedings in terms of Cooperative Societies Act are maintainable and that the suit is not maintainable. 10. The other judgment is reported in Osmangunj Extension Cooperative Society Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad v. Bhawarlal Limited, 1994 0 Supreme 428 (AP). The Apex Court while appreciating the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, which was impugned before it, observed that the word 'touching' indicates that the dispute need not directly arise out of the business, but it is enough that it should have reference or relation or concern with the business of the society. 11. Without any demur, in this case, it can be held that the leasing of the property, which belongs to the church, would amount to the business of society. 11. Without any demur, in this case, it can be held that the leasing of the property, which belongs to the church, would amount to the business of society. The attack on the propriety of the execution of lease deed would be an attack on the affairs of the society, conducted by the treasurer, which come under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. 12. In view of the above, this Court opines that the order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 13. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is allowed. The lower Court shall number the petition, if it is otherwise in order, accordingly. 14. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.