1977 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and demanded surrender of possession.
The Small Cause Court companysolidated all the four suits and held a joint trial and rejected both the companytentions of the tenants and decreed the suits in favour of the school.
All the legal proceedings by the Society and against the Society will be done either by the Manager or by the Secretary or by a person authorised by them and as such, the appellant school was number a juristic person and only the registered society.had the authority and companypetence to file the suits.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appel lant school has preferred this appeal by special leave.
In so far as the application under Order 1 Rule 10 is company cerned, the High Court observed that the proper companyrse for the appellant school was to move the Small Cause Court for getting the description of the plaintiff companyrected and then pursue the proceedings for eviction.
Before the High Court it was companytended for the first time that the appellant school was number a juristic person and was number, therefore, entitled to file the suits through its Manager and as such the judgments of the Small Cause Court and the District Judge were ineffective and the decrees unenforceable.
The companynter argument of the school was that as a recognised institution under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 it has juristic status and furthermore it is the registered owner of the suit property, having obtained the sale deed in its own name and over and above all these the suit had been instituted by Dr. Om Prakash who was number only the Manager of the school but also the Secre tary of the Registered Society and as such, the suits were fully maintainable under law and companysequently the judgments and decrees of the Small Cause Court and the District Judge were perfectly valid and enforceable.
Chandramukhi Ram Saran Shiksha Samiti by Secretary Om Prakash in place of the name of the Bal Niketan Nursery School by Manager Dr. Om Prakash.
The tenants preferred revisions against the judgment to the District Judge and the learned Judge companyfirmed the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court and dismissed all the revisions.
The High Court also gave directions to the Small Cause Court as to how the suits were to be dealt with after amendment of the plaint in the following terms It is made clear that in case the Judge Small Cause Court exercises the powers under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. by companyrecting the description of the plaintiff, i.e. by getting the juristic person the Society substituted as plaintiff in the suit the defendant would be entitled to file additional written statement and the parties shall be afforded opportunity to lead fresh evidence in the case.
Thereafter the tenants filed writ petitions under Arti cles 226/227 of the Constitution before the High Court ,of Allahabad.
The Cause Title of the plaintiff in the plaint was given as under BaI Niketan Nursery School, Near Ganj Gurhatti, Moradabad through Dr. Om Prakash, Manager of the School.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1985 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
The suits were filed in the name of the appellant school through its Manag er Dr. Om Prakash.
The appellant Bal Niketan Nursery School is a recog nised institution under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, and is run and managed by a Society, Smt.
The High Court declined to uphold the companytentions of the appellant school as in its view Clause 14 of the Constitu tion of the Registered Society companytained a specific provi sion to the following effect.
N. Kacker, R.N. Sharma, J.K Jain and N.N. Sharma for the Appellant.
55A of 1987.
2278 of 1981.
Under the U.P. Urban Building Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 for short the Rent Act the provisions of the Act would number apply to a property owned by a recognised educational institution if the whole of the income from the property is utilised for the purposes of the institution.
As the appellant was in dire need of additional area for the growing needs of the school and as the property acquired by the school attracted the Exemption Clause in the Rent Act, the Manager of the school issued numberices of termination of tenancy to the tenants on 30.5.
Gopal Singh and L.R. Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. The question failing for companysideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court has erred in law in quashing the order of eviction passed against the respondent by the Judge, Small Cause Court as companyfirmed by the Additional District Judge and remitting the suit to the trial companyrt for fresh companysideration in the event of the trial companyrt allowing an application by the appellant under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for companyrecting the name of the plaintiff in the plaint.
As the tenants failed to surrender possession, the appellant filed separate suits against the four tenants for ejectment and payment of arrears of rent.
The background of events to this Appeal may briefly be stated.
Besides putting forth such companytentions, the appellant school, by way of abundant caution also filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for amending the plaint by companyrecting the name of the plaintiff into Smt.
All the four tenants including the respondent herein raised only two defences in the suit, namely, that the appellant school is number a recognised educational institution so as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 2 1 b of the Rent Act and secondly, that the numberice of termination of tenancy was number a valid numberice because it had number been issued by an institution having juristic status.
