SADASHIVACHARI Vs. CHANDRAMOULESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are the revision petitioners. The respondent in all these cases is the landlord. It is a Trust called Sri Chandramouleshwara Swamy Temple Trust, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9. On behalf of the Trust, the Secretary filed eviction petitions in H.R.C. 123, 125, 126,127, 129, 130 and 132 of 1981. Eviction was sought under Clauses (h) and (j) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (' the Act' for short). In some matters, eviction was also sought under Clause (p) of Section 21(1) of the Act. The learned Judge on recording evidence has passed an order of eviction in respect of all the tenemants. In these petitions, learned Advocates appearing for the tenantspetitioners submitted that eviction petitions filed by the Secretary were not maintainable. Elaborating their arguments, they drew my attention to a Scheme framed in O.S. No. 41 of 1957. It is not disputed that the management and administration of the temple is according to the scheme framed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bangalore in the above suit. Under the scheme provisions have been made for the purpose of management, administration and conduct of cases in courts etc. The Committee of Management consists of nine members elected or nominated by the members of Swakulashale Community who are the worshippers of the temple. The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary are the office bearers of the said Committee. They are to be elected amongst the members of the Committee and if no election is held for any reason, they are to be appointed by the District Court. The term of the office of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary is two years. Para 7 of the Scheme pertains to the Powers and Duties of the Trustees. Para 9 of the Scheme provides for duties and powers of the Managing Committee. Para 3 of the Scheme provides for the office of the Secretary. Duties and powers of the Secretary as mentioned in the said paragraph are as follows:

(2.) The later part of paragraph 12 makes it manifest that this committee of management can sue and be sued in the name of the Temple and the papers connected thereto in the litigation have to be signed by 'the Chairman and the Secretary' who are authorised to sign on behalf of the trust.

(3.) Under the provisions of the scheme, the Board of Trustees at its meeting held on 29th June, 1980, passed a resolution regarding the eviction proceedings to be initiated on behalf of the Trust. The resolution stated that since the tenanted premises belonging to the temple are in dilapidated condition, to protect the interest of the institution, it was necessary to take action to evict the tenants. In that regard, a resolution was passed appointing Mr. Srinivasa Murthy as Advocate of the Trust. It was further stated that Sri Sarode Gangadharappa, the Secretary and Sri S.N. Gangadhar Rao, the Treasurer, were nominated to represent the trust and approach the lawyer to give necessary instructions to conduct proceedings for eviction vide Exhibit P1(a). As per this resolution, the Secretary and the Treasurer were appointed as nominees to act on behalf of the Trust. As mentioned above, under the Scheme, it was the Chairman and the Secretary who should represent the trust in allitigations. This being the background, eviction petitions were filed against all the tenants of this Trust. The Trust represented by the Secretary Sri Sarode Gangadharappa. Eviction petitions were signed and verified by Sri Sarode Gangadharappa. Vakalath filed in favour of Sri Srinivasa Murthy was signed by Sarode Gangadharappa describing himself as the Secretary of the Trust. The tenants contested the matter. After recording evidence, argument were heard. In the course of arguments, the first point that was debated was whether eviction petition filed by Sarode Gangadharappa, the Secretary of the Trust was valid and proper.