1987 (7) TMI 583 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legal status of the appellant school to file suits.
2. Ownership and landlord status of the appellant school.
3. Competence of Dr. Om Prakash to file suits on behalf of the Registered Society.
4. Application of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for amending the plaint.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legal Status of the Appellant School to File Suits:
The appellant, Bal Niketan Nursery School, is a recognized institution under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The recognition grants the school certain rights, including exemption from the provisions of the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (the Rent Act). The court held that the school, by virtue of its recognition, has acquired legal status and is entitled to file suits through its Manager to seek the eviction of tenants. The respondent's argument that proceedings to impugn the school's recognition could affect its status was dismissed, as no material was provided to show that the recognition had been withdrawn.

2. Ownership and Landlord Status of the Appellant School:
The appellant school is the registered owner of the suit property, having obtained the sale deed in its name. As the owner, the school is entitled to preserve and protect the property and to institute actions in that behalf. The court held that the appellant constitutes the landlord of the tenants after the property was purchased in its name and rents were collected. Consequently, the appellant's right to initiate actions for recovery of arrears of rent or possession of the leased property is valid.

3. Competence of Dr. Om Prakash to File Suits on Behalf of the Registered Society:
Dr. Om Prakash, who is the Manager of the school and the Secretary of the Registered Society, filed the suits. Clause (14) of the Society's Constitution states that legal proceedings by or against the Society will be done by the Manager, Secretary, or an authorized person. The court held that since Dr. Om Prakash is competent to file suits on behalf of the Society, the suits filed by him as Manager of the school are maintainable. The objection raised by the tenants regarding the competence of the appellant to file the suits was deemed without merit.

4. Application of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for Amending the Plaint:
The High Court's decision to remit the suits to the Small Cause Court for fresh consideration after dealing with the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was found to be erroneous. The court emphasized that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is designed to correct bona fide mistakes in the filing of suits and to ensure the due dispensation of justice. The High Court should have allowed the petition and added the Registered Society represented by Dr. Om Prakash as a party, thereby disposing of the writ petitions on their merits. The court cited several precedents supporting the application of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to correct such mistakes and promote justice.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The High Court was directed to add Smt. Chandramukhi Ram Saran Shiksha Samiti through its Secretary Dr. Om Prakash as a plaintiff in the suits, making it clear that Dr. Om Prakash represents both the appellant school and the Registered Society. The writ petitions were to be disposed of on their merits after the formal amendments in the pleadings. Each party was directed to bear its respective costs.