M/S. NISHAT TRADING CO. PARTNERSHIP FIRMversusRANCHHODDAS LOTWALA FOUNDATION AND ORS.

Gitalaxmi                                            3-IA-12693-2025.docx



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


               INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12693 OF 2025
                                 IN
             CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2023
M/S. NISHAT TRADING CO., A PARTNERSHIP
FIRM                                   ...APPLICANT

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

M/S. NISHAT TRADING CO., A PARTNERSHIP
FIRM                                   ...APPLICANT

                       Versus

RANCHHODDAS LOTWALA FOUNDATION AND
ORS.                               ...RESPONDENTS
     Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w Mr. Sahil Saiyed M. N., Ms. Priyanka
     Singh & Mr. Somesh Pathak, learned counsel for the
     Applicant.
     Ms. Bimal Bhabhda, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2,
     3, 5 & 6.
     Ms. Ranjana Parikh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 7 &
     8.

                                CORAM    : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

                                DATE     : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

Per Court :
1.          Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the records.
                                  Page 1 of 13
                            24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                               3-IA-12693-2025.docx



2.          By the present Revision Application, the Applicant-
Partnership Firm is challenging the judgment and decree dated 4 th
May, 2022 passed by the learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes
Court in Appeal No. 158 of 2017, whereby the Appellate Bench
allowed the Appeal preferred by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and set
aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in
R.A.E. Suit No. 770/1408 of 2004. The Appellate Court upheld the
findings of learned Small Causes Court to the extent that part of the
suit premises were sub-let by Defendant No. 1, without permission of
the Plaintiff, to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and reversed the findings of
learned Trial Court that the suit was not maintainable, as the
Plaintiff is a Trust and it did not have the supporting resolution
passed by all the trustees for instituting the suit. The Appellate Court
held that the suit is filed by the Trust and all the trustees are also
Plaintiffs and have signed the plaint and as such, the suit is
maintainable without a formal resolution by the Trust.

3.          The facts giving rise to the present Revision Application are
that the Plaintiff is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the
Public Trust Act, 1950. The suit building is owned by the Plaintiff-
Trust and Defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the suit premises. The
suit premises consist of a ground floor shop known as ‘Nishat Trading
Company’ situated at Arya Bhavan, 459/461, S.V.P. Road, Mumbai-
400 004, bounded on the north by S.V.P. Road, south by the shop of


                                    Page 2 of 13
                              24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                3-IA-12693-2025.docx



Mr. M. J. Raval, east by the shop of New Pioneer Automobiles and
west by the shop of Mr. Nagji Amarchand, as described in the suit.

4.          It is the case of Plaintiff-Trust that Defendant No. 1, without
permission of the Plaintiff, had sub-let the suit premises to Defendant
Nos. 2 and 3 and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are running their clinic in
the said part of suit premises in the name and style as ‘Jankharia
Imaging’.     Thus the Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the
Defendants on the ground of sub-letting part of the suit premises
without permission of the Plaintiff under Section 16(1)(e) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

5.          Defendant No. 1 denied sub-letting of the premises.
Defendants in their written statement stated that they are running
their earlier business in the name and style as ‘Nishat Business
Centre’ and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the partners of business and
that they had approached Plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3 in presence of the
Manager of Plaintiff No. 1-Trust for permission for inlet pipeline,
water connection and sewerage pipeline for the toilet in the suit shop
in the first week of September 2003 and that the permission was
granted by the Plaintiff-Trust for the said purposes and also to
increase the electricity load to be used in the suit shop. Defendant
Nos. 2 and 3 had stated that they are in occupation of the suit
premises with consent of the Plaintiffs. Objection is also raised as
regards the non-production of resolution of the Trust to institute the
suit.
                                    Page 3 of 13
                              24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                  3-IA-12693-2025.docx



6.           Considering the material on record, the learned Trial Court
formulated the following issues and rendered findings thereon,
which are noted below :-

     Sr.                     ISSUES                          FINDINGS
   No.

     1.     Does Plaintiff prove that Defendant No. 1 In the affirmative.
            has unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to
            Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as alleged ?

     2.     Whether Plaintiff is entitled for vacant In the negative.
            possession of suit premises and injunction
            against the Defendants as alleged ?

     3.     Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief In the negative.
            claimed ?

     4.     What order and decree ?                       Suit is dismissed.




7.           Learned Trial Court held that the suit property has been
sub-let by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 without prior
permission of the Plaintiff-Trust, however learned Trial Court has
further observed that the trustees have to take a decision of filing of
the suit on behalf of the Trust.         The said decision should be by
majority and must be reflected in the resolution passed in the
                                     Page 4 of 13
                               24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                   3-IA-12693-2025.docx



meeting of Managing Committee of the Trust and the Trust can
speak or disclose the decision of filing of the suit through the said
resolution. In the instant case, the resolution dated 24 th April, 2004
in respect of filing of the suit against the Defendants is taken only by
two trustees and that there are five trustees of Plaintiff No. 1-Trust.
Therefore, such a major decision of filing of the suit against the
Defendants ought to have been taken with majority of atleast three
trustees and accordingly, the suit was dismissed, as the resolution for
filing suit was supported by only two trustees.

8.           The Plaintiff-Trust challenged the decision of learned Trial
Court before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court.                    The
Appellate       Bench      formulated     the   following    questions      for
determination and rendered its findings thereon, which are noted
below :-

Sr. No.                       POINTS                         FINDINGS

     1.     Whether the suit was maintainable?                    Yes

     2.     Whether there was a sub-letting of part               Yes
            of the suit premises to the Defendant
            Nos. 2 and 3 falling within ambit of
            Sec.16(1)(e)     of     Maharashtra     Rent
            Control Act 1999 ?



                                        Page 5 of 13
                                  24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                               3-IA-12693-2025.docx



     3.     Is there need to interfere with the               Yes
            Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial
            Court?

     4.     What order?                               As per final order




9.           The Appellate Court confirmed the findings of learned Trial
Court that Defendant No. 1 had sub-let the property to Defendant
Nos. 2 and 3 and as such, the Defendants were liable for eviction
under Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

10.          As regards the maintainability of suit is concerned, the
Appellate Bench held that the suit is maintainable, as the same is
filed by the Trust and all its trustees.       All the trustees are the
Plaintiffs in the suit, as such no separate resolution is required for
filing of the suit.

11.          The Appellate Court observed that PW-1 Mr. Anand
Nagappa Naik had stated that co-trustees had signed the plaint and
that Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 were the only trustees of Plaintiff No. 1-
Trust, when the suit was instituted and all the trustees of Plaintiff
No. 1-Trust had signed the plaint.

12.          The Appellate Court held that the suit had been instituted
upon plaint being signed by all the trustees and thus, the suit was

                                    Page 6 of 13
                              24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                               3-IA-12693-2025.docx



maintainable and no resolution was required by the Trust to institute
the suit. Resolution is required only when some of the trustees want
to institute the suit and in the instant case all the trustees had signed
the suit and thus, the suit was maintainable.

13.         Challenging the judgment of Appellate Court, learned
counsel for the Applicant has made brief submissions on sub-letting.
However, there are concurrent findings of facts and no error is
demonstrated before me, as regards the finding of the Court on sub-
letting, as the Courts have rendered finding that Defendant Nos. 2
and 3 were found in exclusive possession of portion sub-let to them.
The only substantial issue that arises for consideration ‘whether the
suit as filed was maintainable on behalf of the Trust with the
supporting resolution of only two trustees?’. In the instant case, the
material     on   record      demonstrates that all    the trustees are
parties/Plaintiffs and have signed the plaint.

14.         Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the suit
without supporting resolution of the majority of trustees, is not
maintainable and in support has relied upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Shri Cutchi Visa Oswal Derawasi Jain Pathshala,
through its Chairman Virchand Koonverji Korani v/s. Shri Cutchi
Visha Oswal Derawasi Jain Mahajan, through its Chairman, Popatlal
Bharmal Sah & Another1, particularly paragraph nos. 41 to 46,
wherein at paragraph no. 46, it has observed that :-
1
    2004 SC OnLine Bom 823.
                                      Page 7 of 13
                                24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                     3-IA-12693-2025.docx



        “The Trust properties vest on all the trustees. Body of the Trust
        comprises of all the trustees of the Trust. It is, therefore,
        apparent that first of all, all the trustees have to decide whether
        or not suit is to be filed on behalf of the Trust. It has to be a
        joint or at least decision by majority. It cannot be disputed that
        the decision of the Trust must be reflected in the resolution
        passed in a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Trust. It
        is only through such resolution the Trust can speak or disclose
        its mind that it has decided to file suit and authorised one of its
        trustees to sign and verify the plaint to appoint or engage
        deader to represent the interest of the Trust.”

15.          Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits
that as the suit is filed by all the trustees by signing a plaint, no
separate resolution is required for filing the said suit and relies upon
the judgment of this Court in the case of Minoo Rustomji Shroff and
Ors. v/s. Dali Kavasji Gai and Ors.2.

Considered the submissions :-

16.          In the fact situation, the judgment relevant to the facts of
this case is the case of Minoo Rustomji Shroff (supra), wherein this
Court has considered the earlier judgment in the case of Shri Cutchi
Visa Oswal Derawasi Jain Pathshala (supra) and has observed in
paragraph no. 19 as under :-

        “19. Before concluding, certain objections raised by the learned
        Counsel for the respondent may be taken into consideration. It
        is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the
        respondent that the plaint/application was not signed by all or
2
    MANU/MH/0419/2008.
                                       Page 8 of 13
                                 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                      3-IA-12693-2025.docx



        any of the trustees and therefore the plaint itself is defective and
        was liable to be rejected. He contended that before filing such
        an application, it was necessary for the trustees to pass a
        resolution to that effect. He placed reliance upon (Shri Cutchi
        Visa Oswal Derawasi Jain Pathshala v. Shri Cutchi Visha Oswal
        Derawasi Mahajan and Anr.) MANU/MH/0776/2004 : 2005(1)
        BomCR105. He referred specifically to paras 44 and 45 of the
        said judgment. They read as follows:

            44. This Court in the case of (Shrikrishna v. Ramnarayanf
            1983 B.C.I. 27 (soft) : MANU/MH/0270/1982 : 1983
            Mh.L.J. 248 followed the law laid down in the case of
            (Vedakannu          υ.         Annadana          Chatram)
            MANU/TN/0296/1938 : A.I.R. 1938 Mad 982 wherein it
            was observed thus:

              The general principle of law is that the office of a
              trustee, irrespective of the number of trustees, is a
              joint one and co-trustees form, as it were, one
              trustee and must therefore execute the duties of
              their office jointly. Hence no suit in regard to Trust
              properties would be maintainable by one or some of
              the trustees only, if the remaining trustees are not
              before the Court either as plaintiffs or even as
              defendants.

            45. As held above, the Trust properties vest on all trustees.
            Body of the Trust comprises of all the trustees of the
            Trust. It is, therefore, apparent that first of all, all the
            trustees have to decide whether or not suit is to be filed
            on behalf of the Trust. It has to be a joint or at least
            decision by majority. It cannot be disputed that the
            decision of the Trust must be reflected in the resolution
            passed in a meeting of the managing committee of the
            Trust. It is only through such resolution the Trust can
                                        Page 9 of 13
                                  24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                     3-IA-12693-2025.docx



            speak or disclose its mind that it has decided to file suit
            and authorised one of its trustees to sign and verify the
            plaint, to appoint or engage pleader to represent the
            interest of the Trust. In the instant case, it is nowhere
            mentioned in body of the plaint that the suit is being filed
            in pursuance of any such resolution passed by the the
            managing committee of the appellant-Trust. Nowhere it is
            mentioned that Mr. V.K. Korani was authorised by all the
            trustees to represent interest of the Trust and that he is
            entitled to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the
            Trust. Thus, prima facie, suit has been filed without there
            being any authority in favour of Mr. Korani from the
            appellant-Pathshala Trust. The suit, thus, suffers from this
            additional substantial defect.

        From the facts of the said case, it is clear that only one of the
        trustees had filed the suit and neither there was any pleading
        nor there was any evidence that the trustees had passed a
        resolution to, file a suit against the defendant and that the said
        trustee, who had filed the suit was authorised by wall of the
        trustees to represent the Trust. If one or some of the trustees
        only filed the suit or such an application, this authority would
        be applicable, but where all the trustees have joined as the
        applicants in the application, that itself indicates that all the
        trustees had agreed and resolved to file the application for
        eviction. Therefore, it was not necessary to plead and prove that
        such a resolution was passed. In fact there was no question of
        authorisation of any particular trustee to file such an application
        because the application was filed by all the trustees jointly.”

17.           From the judgment of this Court, in the case of Minoo
Rustomji Shroff (supra), it is clear that when the suit is filed by all
the trustees, no separate resolution is required for filing of the suit.

                                       Page 10 of 13
                                 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                     3-IA-12693-2025.docx



18.          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. P. Srivastava &
Sons (P) Ltd. and Others v/s. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. and Others 3
while considering whether one co-trustee could determine a tenancy,
at paragraph nos. 24 to 29 has observed as under :-

        “24. .…. A Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Atmaram
        Ranchhodbhai v. Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin³ said: (AIR p.
        115, para 3) W]hether the Trust is a private Trust governed by
        the Indian Trusts Act or is a public charitable or religious Trust,
        a trustee cannot delegate any of his duties, functions and
        powers to a co-trustee or to any other person unless the
        instrument of Trust so provides or the delegation is necessary or
        the beneficiaries competent to contract consent to the
        delegation or the delegation is in the regular course of business.
        These are the only four exceptional cases in which delegation is
        permissible and save in these exceptional cases, the trustees
        cannot, even by a unanimous resolution, authorise one of
        themselves to act as managing trustee for executing the duties,
        functions and powers relating to the Trust and every one of
        them must join in the execution of such duties, functions and
        powers."

        25. The issue in that case was whether one co-trustee could
        determine a tenancy. The Court said he could not, but held:
        (AIR p. 116, para 8)

        "But when we say that the tenancy must be determined by all
        co-trustees, we must make it clear that what we mean is that the
        decision to terminate the tenancy must be taken by all the co-
        trustees. The formal act of giving notice to quit pursuant to the
        decision taken by all the co-trustees may be performed by one
        co-trustee on behalf of the rest. The notice to quit given in such

3
    (2005)1 Supreme Court Cases 172.
                                       Page 11 of 13
                                 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                     3-IA-12693-2025.docx



        a case would be a notice given with the sanction and approval of
        all the co-trustees and would be clearly a notice given by all co-
        trustees."

        26. The view has been followed by the different High Courts
        (see for example Duli Chand v. Mahabir Pershad Trilok Chand
        Charitable Trust) and held to be too narrow in Jain Swetambara
        Murthi Pujaka Samastha v. Waman Dattatreya Pukale.

        27. This Court in Shanti Vijay & Co. v. Princess Fatima Fouzias
        held that: (SCC p. 612, para 26)

        "... the act of one trustee done with the sanction and approval of
        a co-trustee may be regarded as the act of both. But such
        sanction or approval must be strictly proved.'"

        28. It was also held that a trustee could act on behalf of others,
        if there is a clause in the Trust deed authorising the execution of
        the Trust to be carried out by "one or more or by majority of the
        trustees".

        29. Therefore although as a rule, trustees must execute the
        duties of their office jointly, this general principle is subject to
        the following exceptions when one trustee may act for all (1)
        where the Trust deed allows the Trusts to be executed by one or
        more or by a majority of trustees; (2) where there is express
        sanction or approval of the act by the co-trustees; (3) where the
        delegation of power is necessary; (4) where the beneficiaries
        competent to contract consent to the delegation; (5) where the
        delegation to a co-trustee is in the regular course of the
        business; (6) where the co-trustee merely gives effect to a
        decision taken by the trustees jointly.”

19.          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. P. Srivastava &
Sons (P) Ltd. (supra) held that the prohibition is that the trustee
                                       Page 12 of 13
                                 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi                                                          3-IA-12693-2025.docx



cannot delegate any of his duties, functions and powers of co-trustee
to any other person unless provided in the Trust with certain
exceptions noted above in paragraph no. 29 of the judgment. Thus it
follows that the resolution is required only when one of the trustees
acts on behalf of all the trustees and not otherwise. In the instant
case, all the trustees have filed the suit by signing the plaint and
therefore, the resolution of Trust is not required to institute the suit.

20.            In this view of the matter, there is no case made out to
interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Court.
Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Application stands dismissed.

21.            In view of the dismissal of Civil Revision Application,
Interim Application No. 12693 of 2025 stands disposed of.

                                                         [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]

22.            After passing of the order, the learned counsel appearing
for the original Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 submits that they are
rendering public service and medical facilities in the suit premises
and they seek time of 1 & ½ year to vacate the premises subject to
payment of compensation.

23.            Learned counsel for the Applicant to take instructions in
this regard.

24.            For compliance, stand over to 1st October, 2026.
                                                         [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
                                                 Page 13 of 13
                                           24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                        Digitally signed
                        by GITALAXMI
            GITALAXMI   KRISHNA
            KRISHNA     KOTAWADEKAR
            KOTAWADEKAR Date:
                        2026.09.24
                        18:37:47 +0530