PUBLIC TRUST SHRI GEETA SATSANG BHAWANversusNAND LAL & ORS.

                         [2017] 8 S.C.R. 329


        PUBLIC TRUST SHRI GEETA SATSANG BHAWAN                              A
                                   v.
                        NAND LAL & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 3034 of2008)
                            JULY25,2017                                     B
  [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABliAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J
      Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959:
       s. 29 - Bar under - Scope of - Suit for eviction - Filed by
public Trust - Decreed by trial court - First appellate court set C
aside the decree on the ground that the suit was not competent for
want of registration of the Trust, in view of the bar contained in s.
29 - Order of first appellate court was confirmed in second appeal
 by High Court - Appeal to Supreme Court - During pendency of
appeal plaintiff-Trust got itself registered under the Act - Held: s. D
29 creates a bar ''.for hearing and deciding a suit" and not for
filing a suit - A suit can be filed by unregistered Trust, but such suit
can neither be heard nor decided unless and until the Trust is
registered - S.29, therefore, operat.es as stay of proceedings in the
suit, so long as the Trust does not get itself registered under the Act
- The plaintiff-Trust acquired the right to prosecute the suit, after it E
got registered - The suit is restored to be deciJed afresh on merits
 by the trial court.
      Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
        HELD:l. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/plaintiff -
Trust was not a registered public Trust under the Act on the date           F
of filing the civil suit. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant-
plaintiff, therefore, got the Trust registered as required under
the Act only on 07.02.2013 during the pendency of this appeal.
[Para 19)(334-GJ
      2. Section 29 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 creates a G
bar "for hearing and deciding a suit" filed by the public Trust for
enforcement of any of their rights, if the said Trust is not
registered under the Act. The bar, therefore, applies for "hearing
and deciding" a suit and not in filing tht:_ suit. In other words, suit
                                                                            H
                                  329
330            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A can b1~ filed by the unregistered Trust but such suit will neither
  be heard nor decided by the Court unless and until the Trust is
  registered under the Act. Section 29, therefore, operates as stay
  of proceedings in the suit so long as the Trust does not get itself
  registered under the Act. [Para 211[335-CI
B           3. A fortorari, the moment the Trust is registered under the
      Act, the Trial Court would assume the jurisdiction to hear and
      decide the suit on merits. The bar created under Section 29 of
      the Act for "hearing and deciding" the suit is then lifted and ceases
      to apply to the proceedings in the suit. [Para 221[335-DI
 c          4. Since the appellant (plaintiff) -Trust was registered under
      the Act on 07.02.2013, they acquired a right to prosecute the
      suit on merits against the respondents. The bar created under
      Section 29 then would no longer operate to the proceedings in
      the suit. [Para 231[335-EJ
 D        5. The Trial Court was, therefore, wholly unjustified in
   proceeding to hear and decide the suit on merits by passing a
   judgment/decree. It failed to see the rigor of Section 29 which
   had taken away the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in hearing and
   deciding the suit. The decree passed by the Trial Court is without
   jurisdiction and has to be set aside. Similarly, the first Appellate
 E Court and the High Court also erred in straightaway dismissing
   the appellant's suit. Having held and indeed rightly that the Trust
   was unregistered, instead of deciding the appeal and dismissing
   the suit should have stayed the proceedings by granting some
   reasonable time to the appellant/plaintiff-Trust to get their Trust
 p registered under the Act. If despite granting time, the Trust had
   failed to obtain the Registration Certificate then in such
   eventuality, the first Appellate Court could have dismissed the
   suit. [Paras 24, 25 and 28)(335-F-H; 336-DI
         6. Now that the appellant/plaintiff has obtained the
 G necessary registration certificate in relation to their Trust under
   the Act, which is also taken on record, their suit can now be heard
   and decided on merits by the Trial Court. The bar operating under
   Section 29 of the Act for hearing and deciding the suit would no
   longer apply to the suit and the Civil Court would now assume
   jurisdiction to try the suit on merits. While setting aside the
 H
      PUBLIC TRUST SHRI GEETA SATSANG BHAWAN v. NAND                            331
                            LAL

    impugned order and also of the first appellate court and the trial          A
    court, the civil suit is restored to its file for deciding the civil suit
    afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 18,- 26] [334-F;
\   336-A-B]
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3034.
    of 2008.                                      -                         B
          From the Judgment and Order dated 19.09 .2006 of the High Court
    of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No.
    295 of2006 and S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 296 of2006.
                                     WITH
          C. A. Nos. 9876, 9877 and 9878 of 2017. ·                             c
         M. R. Calla, Sr. Adv., An~it Acharya, Gaurav Dave, Mohan
    Pandey, Ms. Charu Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.
          Puneet Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Ms. Paya! Jain, Ms. Christi Jain (for
    Ms. Pratibha Jain), Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                                D
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
          In Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2008
           1. This appeal is filed by the Plaintiff against the final judgment
    an_dorders dated 19.09.2006 passed bytl:ie High Couf! of Judicature for E
    Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 295 of 2006 and
    S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 296 of2006 whereby the High Court, by
    separate judgments, dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiff against
    the judgment dated 30.11.2005 of the Additional District Judge(Fast
    Track) No.2, Pali (Raj.) in Civil Appeal Decree Nos.3 and 4 of 2005
    whereby the appeals of the respondents (defendants) were allowed and F
    the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge
    (Senior Division), Pali in the Civil Suit No. 4/2004 and Civil Suit No. 51
    2004 were set aside.
          2. We herein set out the facts, in bri·ef, to appreciate the issues
    involved in this appeal.                               ·             ·      G
           3. The appellant is a public Trust of which Shri Ramanand is the
    Chairman. The Trust was formed by executing a Trust deed on
    31.07.1980. The land measuring 1Bigha5 Biswas situated at Pali was ,
    allotted by the Government on 14.05.1982 in the name of Shri Rama
                                                                                H
332              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [20I 7] 8 S.C.R.


A Nand and the patta was accordingly granted to him. He then constructed
  shops on this land.
         4. On Ol.I0.1985, the Shop No.7 was let out to Nand Lal-
  respondent No.1 on rent on an oral agreement at a monthly rent of
  Rs.5001- which was enhanced at Rs.625/- per month on 01.10.1996
B with the consent of both parties.
               5. On Ol.l0.I989, the Shop No.11 was let out to Nand Lal,
       Jitendar Rai Mathur and Mis Mayur Auto Repairs on rent on the basis
       of an oral agreement at a monthly rent ofRs.600/-, which was enhanced
       to Rs.750/- per month on Ol.10.I996 with the consent of the parties.
l      After the enhancement of rent, the respondents stopped paying the rent
       to the appellant-Trust. However, respondent No. I paid rent only in respect
       of Shop No. 7 up to 30.06.1998.
          6. On I7.10.1998, the appellant, therefore, sent a notice under
   Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, I 882 to the respondents in
 D n:spect of Shop No. I I through registered post and terminated the tenancy.
   By virtue of notice, the respondents were informed that their tenancy
   would terminatew.e.f. midnightof30.l 1.1998. Similarly, on22.10.1998,
   the appellant sent a notice under Section l 06 of the T.P. Act to respondent
   No. I in respect of Shop No. 7 through registered post and terminated the
   tenancy w.e.f. midnight of 30. I!. I 998. Respondent No. I did not reply
 E to this notice also.
             7. Subsequently, on 23. l O. I 998, the respondents gave a cheque to
      the appellant against the rent in respect of Shop No.I I up to the month
      of November and damages on account of use and occupation for the
      month of December, 1998 and respondent No. I gave a cheque in respect
    F of Shop No. 7 against the rent up to the month of November and damages
      on account of use and occupation for the month of December, I 998.
      However, the respondents did not hand over the possession of both the
      shops.
         8. On 20.01.1999, the appellant instituted a suit for eviction and
 G recovery ofrent being Civil Suit No. 15199 (re-numbered as 5/2004)
   against Nand Lal, Jitendar Rai Mathur and Mis Mayur Auto Repairs in
   respect of Shop No.11 and Civil Suit No. I4/99 (re-numbered as 4/2004)
   against Nand Lal in respect of Shop No. 7 before the Additional Civil
   Judge(Senior Division), Pali.
 H
  PUBLIC TRUST SHRI GEETA SATSANG BHAWAN v. NAND                            333
           LAL [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      9. The Trial Court, after framing the issues in both the suits, by A
separate judgments on 27 .10.2004, answered the issues in favour of the
appellant and accordingly decreed the appellant's suit and ordered the
respondents' eviction from the suit premises within a period of two months
and pay the damages for use and occupation w.e.f. 20.11.1998 till the
date of handing over the possession of the suit premises (i) at the rate of B
Rs.750/-per month in Civil Suit No.5/2004 and (ii) at the rate ofRs.625/
-per month in Civil Suit No.4/2004.
       10. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents filed separate
first appeals being Civil Appeal Decree No.3/2005 and Civil Appeal
Decree No.4/2005 before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track)          C
No.2,Pali.
      11. The Appellate Court framed additional issues in place of issue
Nos. 1 and l(a) framed by the Trial Court, which read as under:
      "(1) Whether the plaintiff-trust is exempted from the Rent
      Act according to the Advertisement No.P-4(1l)V.V. and 3/ D
      96 dated 04.07.98 published at Page No.51 in the Rajasthan
      government Gazette Edition dated 06.07.1998?
      (2) Whether having terminated the tenancy by issuing notice
      under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, plaintiff
      is entitled to get the possession?                           E
      (3) Whether the plaintiff is a registered Trust, if yes, then
      its effect?
       (4) Whether all the Trustees are necessary parties to the
       suit?
       (5) Whether the notice has been waived on account of F
       accepting the rent after terminating the tenancy through
       notice?"                                          ·
       12. By separate judgments on dated 30.11.2005, the Appellate
Court decided issue Nos. 3 and 4, as extracted above, against the appellant
and accordingly allowed the respondents' appeals and set aside the G
judgments and decree dated 27.10.2-004 passed by the Trial Court in
Civil Suit Nos. 4/2004 and 5/2004. It was held that since the plaintiff-
Trust was not registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act;
 1959(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the suit itself was not
                                                                            H
334              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A competent for want of registration in the light of bar contained in Section
  29 of the Act. The Appellate Court, therefore, did not go into the merits
  of the case and dismissed the suit.
         13. Aggrieved by the said judgments, the appellant preferred
  S.B.Civil Second Appeal Nos.295/2006 and 296/2006 before the High
B Court.
            14. The High Court, by the impugned judgments, dismissed the
      appeals in limine.
             15. Against both the judgments, this appeal by special leave is
      filed by the plaintiff-Trust before this Court.
 c
             16. Heard Mr. M.R. Calla, learned senior counsel for the appellant-
      Trust and Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
           17. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant (plaintiff)
   filed I.A. No 5 of2013 and sought permission to file additional documents
 D in support of their case. The appellant along with IA filed one Registration
   Certificate issued on 07.02.2013 by the office of the Assistant
   Commissioner, Department of Endowments, Jodhpur, Government of
   Raj asthan(Annexure A-3) certifying therein that the appellant(plaintiff)-
   Trust is registered under the Act w.e.f. 07.02.2013. A prayer was,
   therefore, made to take this document on record being relevant one for
 E deciding the appeal. This I.A. was allowed by this Court's order dated
   20.01.2014.
             18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
      of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and
      while setting aside the impugned order and also of the first Appellate
 F    Court and the Trial Court restore the civil suit to its file for deciding the
      civil suit afresh on merits in accordance with law.
            19. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/plaintiff - Trust was
   not a registered public Trust under the Act on the date of filing the civil
   suit. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant-plaintiff; therefore, got
 G the Trust registered as required under the Act only on 07.02.2013 during
   the pendency of this appeal.
               20. Section 29 of the Act, which applies to this case, reads as
      under:
               "Section 29. Bar against suits by on-registered trust-(1)
 H
  PUBLIC TRUST SHRI GEETA SATSANG BHAWAN v. NAND                                335
           LAL [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which is           A
      required to be registered under this Act but has not been
      so registered shall be heard or decided in any Court.
      (2) The provisions of Sub-section(!) shall apply to claim of
      set off or other proceeding to enforce a right on behalf of
      such public trust."                                          B
       21. Section 29 creates a bar "for hearing and deciding a suit"
filed by the public Trust for enforcement of any of their rights, if the said
Trust is not registered under the Act. The bar, therefore, applies for
"hearing and deciding" a suit and not in filing the suit. In other words,
suit can be filed by the unregistered Trust but such suit will neither be       c
heard nor decided by the Court unless and until the Trust is registered
under the Act. Section 29, therefore, operates as stay of proceedings in
the suit so long as the Trust does not get itself registered under the Act.
       22. Afortorari, the moment the Trust is registered under the Act,
the Trial Court would assume the jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit D ·
on merits. The bar created under Section 29 of the Act for "hearing and
deciding" the suit is then lifted and ceases to apply to the proceedings in
the suit.
       23. As mentioned supra, since the appellant (plaintiff)- Trust was
registered under the Act on 07.02.2013, they acquired a right to prosecute      E
the suit on merits against the respondents. The bar created under Section
29 then would no longer operate to the proceedings in the suit.
       24. In our opinion, the Trial Court was, therefore, wholly unjustified
in proceeding to hear and decide the suit on merits by passing a judgment/
decree. It failed to see the rigor of Section 29 which had taken away the       F
jurisdiction of the Trial Court in hearing and deciding the suit.
       25. Similarly, the first Appellate Court and the High Court also
erred in straightaway dismissing the appellant's suit. Having held and
indeed rightly that the Trust was unregistered, instead of deciding the
appeal and dismissing the suit should have stayed the proceedings by G
granting some reasonable time to the appellant/plaintiff-Trust to get their
Trust registered under the Act. If despite granting time, the Trust had
failed to obtain the Registration Certificate then in such eventuality, the
first Appellate Court could have dismissed the suit.

                                                                                H
336             SCPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A        26. Be that as it may, now that the appellantJplaintiffhas obtained
  the necessary registration certificate in relation to their Trust under the
  Act, which is also taken on record, their suit can now be heard and
  decided on merits by the Trial Court. The bar operating under Section 29
  of the Act for hearing and deciding the suit would no longer apply to the
  suit and the Civil Court would now assume jurisdiction to try the suit on
B
  merits.
            27. Learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff), however,
      submitted that the matter be remanded to the first Appellate Court to
      decide the appeal filed by the respondent on merits because the Trial
      Court has already decided the suit on merits in their favour. The
c     submission is devoid of any merit for more than one reason.
         28. First, the decree passed by the Trial Court was on the face of
  it without jurisdiction having been passed in contravention of Section 29
  of the Act; second, the Civil Court had no power to hear and decide the
  suit by virtue of the bar created under section 29 of the Act; and third,
D admittedly the Trust was not registered on the date of filing of the suit
  and remained un-registered till the judgment was delivered by the Trial
  Court. It is for these reasons, the decree passed by the Trial Court is
  without jurisdiction and has to be set aside.
             29. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed in part,
E     impugned judgments as also the judgmentJdecrees of the Trial Court are
      set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for hearing and
      deciding the suits on merits in accordance with law. Parties are granted
      liberty to amend their pleadings and also file additional documents
      including the certificate of registration of the Trust to enable the Trial
 F    Court to decide the suits as directed. The Trial Court shall decide the
      suits within six months uninfluenced by any of our observations on merits
      because we have not expressed our opinion on any of the issues touching
      the merits of the controversy. Parties to appear before the Trial Court
      on 21.08.2017 to enable the Trial Court to proceed with the trial.
G            30. The Registry is directed to send back the original record of
      the case to the Trial Court forthwith, if it is requisitioned, and also send
      one copy of this order to the Trial Court for information and record.
            In S.L.P.{c) Nos. 10949, 11138 and 14325 of 2008
            31. Leave granted.
H
  PUBLIC TRUST SHRI GEETA SATSANG BHAWAN v. NAND                          337
           LAL [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      32. In view of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 3034 of A
2008, these appeals are allowed in part on the same terms.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                             Appeals partly allowed.