BHILAI EDUCATION TRUST Vs. BHILAI STEEL PLANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 16 th of March, 2017 passed in Civil Suit No.101-A/2015 by Sixth Additional District Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), whereby the civil suit filed by the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. The present appeal is by the plaintiff.

(2.) (a) The brief facts as pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff is a trust registered under the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1951') and is a charitable trust. It was further pleaded that on 7/4/1980 a lease deed was executed in between the plaintiff/appellant and the respondent, wherein the trust was granted 14 acres of land at Bhilai and the total rent of the entire land for the first 10 years was fixed at Rs.912.50 and subsequently after ten years, there would be an increase of 20 percent in the amount of the said rent, this increase would continue for thirty years. After thirty years the lease would be renewed for further 30 years. Pursuant thereto , the respondent No. 1 allotted 14 acres of land to the appellant on 15/9/1980, the initial period of which was from 1980 to 14/9/2010. After the plaintiff came into possession, the superstructure of the college building along with appurtenant ancillary staff office, library, meeting hall etc. was raised.

(3.) In response to the said plaint, the defendant avered that the plaint was filed by one Surendra Gupta, who has no locus standi for the reason that no document to show that he is the Trustee and Secretary has been filed. It was further stated that the resolution to file the suit was also not filed. Further the specific averment was made that as per the information of the Registrar, Public Trusts vide letter dtd. 14/2/2011, the alleged trust was not registered. It was further stated that since demand of Rs.6,05,93,702.00 was claimed to be annulled, the necessary advolerum court fee was not paid. It was further stated that having served with the notice under the Act, 1971, the civil suit would be barred. Defendant further averred that as per terms and condition No.5 (1) (1A) of the initial lease deed, the option to exercise the renewal should have been exercised not later than six months prior to the expiration of the existing lease and the lease of the plaintiff which commenced on 15/9/1980, the option to renew was not made within the stipulated prior period of time. Consequently, in order to grant afresh lease, the defendant was also not bound by the terms of the lease.