JUDGMENT : ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. These three connected writ petitions have been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order passed by court below in eviction proceeding initiated by plaintiff-respondent. 2. Matters under Article 227 No. 11338 of 2025 has been filed questioning the legality of judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 passed by Judge Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura in S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 2001 and order dated 30.08.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura in S.C.C. Revision No. 37 of 2012. 3. Matters under Article 227 No. 1903 of 2015 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12.03.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Mathura remitting the matter back to lower revisional court to decide revision afresh in light of observation made in the order impugned. 4. Matters under Article 227 No. 2081 of 2015 also questions the legality of order dated 12.03.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Mathura remitting back the matter to trial court to decide afresh. 5. Counsels appearing in all the three matters representing different parties consented that matter be heard and decided together, thus, this Court proceeds to hear and decide the same by common order. 6. Brief facts, leading rise to present dispute, are that one Sri Jugal Kishore Birla son of Raja Baldeo Das Birla, from his own funds, purchased 13 acre 37 decimal land bearing Khasra No. 825, Muhal Gair Khwahindgan Khewat No. 255, which was in ruins, from its owner Swami Rai Krishna Das and Rai Anand Krishna for Rs.13,400/-, in the name of Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, Gosain Ganesh Dutt and Professor Bhikhan Lal Aatreya on 08.02.1944 and a registered sale-deed was executed. 7. Mahamana Malviya in order to develop the land constituted a temporary committee in name of “Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Jirnodhar Samiti”. A publication was made in daily newspaper on 08.07.1944. A meeting was held at Mathura for constructing a monument of Shri Krishna and it was resolved that money needed for such construction was to be collected. However, due to sad demise of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, the work of Samiti stopped. Sri Jugal Kishore Birla who had purchased the land from his money, in order to fulfill the dream of Mahamana Malviya established a trust on 21.02.1951. However, due to sad demise of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, the work of Samiti stopped. Sri Jugal Kishore Birla who had purchased the land from his money, in order to fulfill the dream of Mahamana Malviya established a trust on 21.02.1951. The trust was created in name of “Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust”. Clause 2 of the deed provided for object of the trust, which is as under:- 8. Clause 4 of the deed provided that trust committee would have minimum of 11 trustees with a maximum limit of 21. Names of original15 trustees was detailed in Clause 4 of the deed, which is as under:- 9. With passage of time, on 01.05.1958, a society in the name of “Shri Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan” was registered under provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1860”) and registration certificate was granted on 23.09.1958. Clause 2 of Memorandum of society enumerates the object of the society which was formed by trustees of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust, which is as under:- 10. Initially, all the 15 trustees were made Member of the society whose name finds place in Clause 3 of the Memorandum, which is as under:- 11. The by-laws of society were amended and registered on 27.06.1983. From time to time the registration of society has been renewed and last of renewal has taken place in 2025. Clause 4 of by- laws provides that movable and immovable property of society will vest in trustees of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust and work of trust will be performed as per rule of the trust. After creation of trust, trustees decided for registration of society for day to day performance and management of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi work and society is working since 1958. 12. Constructions which were raised by society, were with approval of the trust. Certain shops were constructed in campus of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi which were let out by society. On 02.09.1987, Shop No. 8-A was let out to petitioner of Writ Petition No. 11338 of 2025 for a period of 11 months at monthly licence fees of Rs.300/-. Notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1882”) was given to petitioner on 06.07.2001 terminating his tenancy. The said notice was replied and an amount of Rs.300/- was tendered. Notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1882”) was given to petitioner on 06.07.2001 terminating his tenancy. The said notice was replied and an amount of Rs.300/- was tendered. The plaintiff-respondent took back the notice dated 06.07.2001 and again gave notice on 17.09.2001 terminating the tenancy. Petitioner refused to accept the notice. Again, registered notice was sent on 03.10.2001 and 15.10.2001 which was also refused by tenant-petitioner. A publication was made in newspaper Amar Ujala on 06.11.2001. When the shop was not vacated, S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 2001 was filed by plaintiff-respondent against tenant-petitioner of Writ Petition No. 11338 of 2025. The trial court framed following issues:- 13. Issue Nos. 1, 4 and 7 were in regard to whether the property is of Shri Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan and whether the suit not filed under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not maintainable and whether the plaintiff was a public charitable institution or not. The trial court found the plaintiff to be owner of the property in question and further held that provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. The trial court also decided other issues in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and decreed the suit for eviction and damages on 31.08.2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 37 of 2012 which was dismissed vide judgment impugned dated 30.08.2025. Hence, Writ Petition No. 11338 of 2025. 14. Similarly, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent and realisation of electricity dues in respect of Shop No. 8 against one Smt. Padma Raghav, defendant-petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2015, which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2000. In the said suit, following seven issues were framed:- 15. The trial court on 09.07.2012 while deciding Issue No. 4 and 7 found that plaintiff-respondent was not public charitable trust and provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable and dismissed the suit on 09.07.2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment, plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.C. Revision No. 31 of 2012 which was allowed on 12.03.2015 and the case was remitted back to trial court for deciding afresh. Hence, Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2015 was filed. 16. Aggrieved by the said judgment, plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.C. Revision No. 31 of 2012 which was allowed on 12.03.2015 and the case was remitted back to trial court for deciding afresh. Hence, Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2015 was filed. 16. Dispute in respect of Shop No. 16 and 17 had led to eviction proceeding having been initiated by plaintiff-respondent and also for decree of Rs.2600/- as rent and damages against Late Harish Raghav which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 2002. During pendency of the suit, Harish Raghav died and his legal heirs i.e. petitioners of Writ Petition No. 2081 of 2015 were substituted as legal heirs. The trial court framed following issues in the suit:- 17. The said suit was dismissed on 09.07.2012 on the ground that plaintiff is not a public charitable trust and Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable. Aggrieved by the said judgment, S.C.C. Revision No. 32 of 2012 was filed by plaintiff-respondent which was allowed on 12.03.2015 and the judgment of trial court was set aside and the matter was remitted for consideration afresh. Hence, Writ Petition No. 2081 of 2015 was filed. 18. Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel appearing in Writ Petition No. 11338 of 2025 submitted that only point for consideration in the writ petition is that no document was filed to prove that Kapil Sharma was Secretary of the society and had power to contest the suit filed on behalf of society. According to him, this was the specific ground taken in the revision which had remained unanswered by court below. According to him, in S.C.C. Suit No. 360 of 2004 filed by society against one Pooran Singh Raghav, Issue No. 9 was framed in regard to authority of Kapil Sharma to institute suit on behalf of society and a finding has been returned against plaintiff of that suit. He also invited attention of the Court to finding recorded in S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2000 in which it has been held that Kapil Sharma did not have authority to institute suit on behalf of plaintiff. 19. Similarly, he has placed finding recorded by trial court in S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 2002 instituted against Harish Raghav. According to him, once papers were not in proper shape and not placed before the court, there stood no occasion for the court in maintaining the proceedings against defendant-petitioner. 20. 19. Similarly, he has placed finding recorded by trial court in S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 2002 instituted against Harish Raghav. According to him, once papers were not in proper shape and not placed before the court, there stood no occasion for the court in maintaining the proceedings against defendant-petitioner. 20. However, as to applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972, he fairly conceded that already the issue has been decided in decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench in case of Nand Kishore Gosaeen and others vs. State of U. P. and others , 1999 (4) AWC 3085 wherein validity of Section 2(bb) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as “the Act of 1972”) was challenged and the Court had dismissed the petition upholding the validity of the said provision. 21. Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing in other two connected writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2015 and 2081 of 2015 submitted that plaintiff is not a public charitable institution as defined under Section 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act of 1972 and, thus, the Act No. 13 of 1972 is not exempted. He has relied upon the finding recorded by trial court in matter of Padma Raghav and Harish Raghav. According to him, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have discharged his burden to carve out a case under Section 2(bb) of the Act of 1972 for being exempted under the said Act. He further submitted that the revisional court was not correct in setting aside the decision of trial court and remitting back the matter to trial court for decision afresh. 22. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for plaintiff- respondent in all the three matters submitted that trust deed of 1951 is a conclusive proof in itself of the fact that land was purchased by Jugal Kishore Birla in name of Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, Gosain Ganesh Dutt and Professor Bhikhan Lal Aatreya for the benefit of entire Hindu community for Rs.13,400/- in the year 1944. A trust was created in 1951 which enumerates the object of the trust and it clearly reveals that it is a public religious charitable trust for the welfare of the entire Hindu community not only residing within the country but throughout the world. 23. A trust was created in 1951 which enumerates the object of the trust and it clearly reveals that it is a public religious charitable trust for the welfare of the entire Hindu community not only residing within the country but throughout the world. 23. According to him, the object of the trust and, thereafter, the society formed in the year 1958 having same persons as Members who were trustees also reveal that object of the society was for the benefit of public at large which is well within the definition of Section 2(bb) of the Act of 1972. 24. He then submitted that initially when Section 2(3) of Act of 1972 was in force, the Government by notification dated 20.09.1994 had exempted Shri Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan, Bhagwat Bhawan and Aayurved Bhawan along with shops and rooms inside the same Sansthan from operation of the Act of 1972. However, with the amendment which came into effect from 26.09.1994 through U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995, Section 2(bb) was added and Section 2(3) was omitted. Further, validity of Section 2(bb) has already been decided by co-ordinate Bench in case of Nand Kishore Gosaeen (supra) in which petitioner Ashok Raghav was petitioner no. 6. Once the issue under Section 2(bb) has been decided and attained finality, tenants cannot raise this question as to character of the trust or society in proceedings before court below. According to him, the licence was only for a period of 11 months which was never renewed and plaintiff treating them to be in unauthorised occupation had given notice for eviction under Section 106 of the Act of 1882. He also contends that concurrent finding of fact has been recorded in Writ Petition No. 11338 of 2025 while the challenge in Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2015 and 2081 of 2015 is only to a remand order. 25. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 26. Petitioners, before this Court, have questioned the order passed by court below on two premise. Firstly, that Kapil Sharma, Secretary of society did not have authority to institute and carry on the suit. Secondly, trust/society is not a public religious institution, hence, Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable. 27. 26. Petitioners, before this Court, have questioned the order passed by court below on two premise. Firstly, that Kapil Sharma, Secretary of society did not have authority to institute and carry on the suit. Secondly, trust/society is not a public religious institution, hence, Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable. 27. Before delving in to decide the question raised by tenants- petitioners, reading of object with which the trust in name of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust was created and, thereafter, society in name of Sri Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan was created and registered in the year 1958, would reveal that Sri Jugal Kishore Birla had purchased Khasra No. 825, Khewat No. 255, measuring 13 acre 37 decimal for Rs.13,400/- through a registered sale-deed on 08.02.1944 from Swami Rai Krishna Das and Rai Anand Krishna not in his personal name but in the name of Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, Gosain Ganesh Dutt and Professor Bhikhan Lal Aatreya. 28. Mahamana Malviya had formed a temporary society in name of “Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Jirnodhar Samiti”, and a publication was made in newspaper for developing the said land. A meeting was held on 08.07.1944 at Mathura where a resolution was passed for developing the land in name of Sri Krishna and collecting money for the said purpose. 29. As Mahamana Malviya had passed away, to fulfill his dream, Sri Jugal Kishore Birla had got a trust registered on 21.02.1951 with the object enshrined in Clause 2, developing Katra Keshav Deo and on the said land making construction and conveying teachings of Lord Krishna not only throughout India but throughout the world. 30. It further provided that trust will after constructing a grand temple at Shri Krishna Janmbhumi will not only manage it, but also make provision for kirtan and other religious lectures, and also open college, library and provide scholarship to students. 31. The object enshrined in Clause 2 clearly covers it under provisions of Section 3(r) and 3(s) i.e. charitable and religious institution. The object provided in Clause 2 encompasses the character of both “charitable institution” and “religious institution”. As the trust was created not for the benefit of a family or a particular person but for the benefit of the Hindus throughout the world, thus, it can be safely called as public charitable and religious institution covered under Section 2(bb) of the Act of 1972. 32. As the trust was created not for the benefit of a family or a particular person but for the benefit of the Hindus throughout the world, thus, it can be safely called as public charitable and religious institution covered under Section 2(bb) of the Act of 1972. 32. The formation of society in the year 1958 by trustees with the object enshrined in Clause 2 further clarified and specified the public charitable and religious character for which it was registered by same 15 trustees who became Members of the society. From reading of Clause 2 of the trust deed and Clause 2 of the Memorandum of society, no iota of doubt remains as to charitable and religious character of the plaintiff- society. 33. The arguments raised in Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2015 and 2081 of 2015 are displaced from perusal of the trust deed of 1951 and the object of the society registered in the year 1958. 34. Moreover, after sub-section (3) of Section 2 was omitted by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 which came into effect from 26.09.1994 and Section 2(bb) having been inserted in Section 2 of the Act of 1972 which lays down exemption from the operation of Act of 1972, it is thus clear that any building belonging to or vested in public charitable or public religious institution, the Act of 1972 was not applicable. 35. In the instant case, it is clear that trust formed in the year 1951 was of public charitable and religious character. The society was registered in the year 1958 to supplement the cause of the trust and look after its day to day function and also has a character of charitable and religious institution as required in Section 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act. 36. Once it is clear that both trust and society formed for the benefit of public at large, and had a character of charitable and religious institution, the operation of the Act became exempted in view of Section 2(bb). The trial court in the suit instituted by plaintiff-respondent against Padma Raghav and Harish Raghav had wrongly interpreted the judgment of co- ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in case of Nand Kishore Gosaeen (supra) . The objection as to building being vested in a public religious institution is easily identifiable from the object enshrined in the trust deed and by-laws of the society. The objection as to building being vested in a public religious institution is easily identifiable from the object enshrined in the trust deed and by-laws of the society. The trial court in both the suits filed by plaintiff-respondent had held it to be a private trust not having charitable and religious character which is against the material on record. 37. Now, coming to the other question posed before this Court by Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel as to finding recorded by both courts below in case of petitioner Ashok Raghav that Kapil Sharma was authorised to continue the suit on behalf of plaintiff-respondent though there was no document to prove that he continued as Secretary of society. 38. From perusal of material on record and finding recorded by courts below, it is evident that registration of the society was renewed till 2001 and Kapil Sharma was appointed as Secretary of the society. By-laws clearly provided that Secretary and Joint Secretary of the society were authorised to carry on the work of society and to sue and pursue litigation on behalf of society. 39. Section 5 of Societies Registration Act provides that all properties of society will vest in trustees and in absence of trustees, it will vest in governing body. From reading of by-laws of society, it is clear that it was registered for fulfilling object of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust. While Section 6 provides for suits by and against trustees, while Section 7 provides that no suit or proceeding in any civil court shall abate or discontinue by reason of the person, by or against whom such suit or proceeding shall have been brought or continued, dying or ceasing to fill the character in the name whereof he shall have sued or been sued, but the same suit or proceeding shall be continued in the name of or against the successor of such person. Relevant Sections 5, 6 and 7 are extracted hereasunder:- “ 5. Property of society how vested. —The property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society by their proper title. 6. Suits by and against societies. 6. Suits by and against societies. — Every society registered under this Act may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society, and, in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion: Provided that it shall be competent for any person having a claim or demand against the society, to sue the president or chairman, or principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if on application to the governing body some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendant. 7. Suits not to abate. —No suit or proceeding in any Civil Court shall abate or discontinue by reason of the person, by or against whom such suit or proceedings shall have been brought or continued, dying or ceasing to fill the character in the name whereof he shall have sued or been sued, but the same suit or proceeding shall be continued in the name of or against the successor of such person.” 40. Thus, from the conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that suit was instituted in the name of society registered in the year 1958 and was being pursued by Secretary so elected amongst the Members. The trial court while deciding Issue No. 8, relying upon Paper No. 466/1 which was proceeding of management committee of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust and Shri Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan, had recorded finding that resolution was passed appointing Kapil Sharma as Secretary of the society which was in consonance with Clause 26 of by- laws registered with Registrar of Societies. Moreover, Clause 33 of by- laws clearly provided that any legal proceeding initiated by society or against society shall be carried by Secretary and Joint Secretary of the society. 41. It is an undisputed fact that society had instituted suit for eviction against petitioners in all the three writ petitions and a hyper technical objection has been raised that Kapil Sharma had no authority to contest the matter on behalf of society. It is evidently clear from Clause 26 and 33 of by-laws of the society that the Secretary as well as Joint Secretary are empowered to contest all the litigations before the Court on behalf of society. It is evidently clear from Clause 26 and 33 of by-laws of the society that the Secretary as well as Joint Secretary are empowered to contest all the litigations before the Court on behalf of society. Further, there is no dispute among any of the trustees or Members of the trust or society in regard to authority of Kapil Sharma acting as Secretary of the society. 42. Once, such is the position that the authority of Kapil Sharma acting as Secretary of the society has never been under challenge by any of the trustee or members of society, the question raised by tenant-petitioner is of no consequence. 43. This Court finds that the eviction proceeding has been dragged on for last 25 years and solely on technical ground the possession of the shop in question could not be handed over to landlord-society. 44. During argument, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel had submitted that due to huge influx of devotees thronging at the Temple everyday, it has become difficult to manage the crowd and shops within the campus need to be removed for easy accessibility of the devotees to perform their religious obligation within the temple premises. 45. This Court finds that initially only a licence was granted to petitioners for a period of 11 months. They have continued for a long time despite the fact that licence was never renewed. The only effort on the part of petitioners is to drag on the litigation on technical ground. 46. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no interference is required in the finding recorded by both courts below in Writ Petition No. 11338 of 2025 as to public religious and charitable character of plaintiff-respondent society and also the challenge to the authority of Secretary of the society. Thus, both the questions framed above stand answered. 47. Similarly, no interference is required in the order passed by revisional court which is under challenge in Writ Petition No. 1903 of2015 and Writ Petition No. 2081 of 2015. 48. All the three writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. 49. However, the trial court is directed to proceed with S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2000 and S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 2002, expeditiously and conclude the proceedings, within a period of two months, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.