9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a Society, Smt. Chandramukhi Ram Saran Shiksha Samiti , registered under the Societies Registration Act. Dr. Om Prakash is the Manager of the appellant school and also the Secretary of the registered Society mentioned above. On 10.3.1977 the Society purchased a plot of the land adjoining the school together with four super structures (Khaprails) standing thereon in the name of the appellant school through its Manager Om Prakash Gupta. The super-structures were in the occupation of four tenants. The entire rental income derived from the tenants is being utilised for the purpose of running the school. Under the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (for short the Rent Act) the provisions of the Act would not apply to a property owned by a recognised educational institution if the whole of the income from the property is utilised for the purposes of the institution. Section 2(1)(b) which provides for the exemption is in the following terms: Nothing in this Act shall apply to any building belonging to or vested in a recognised institution, the whole of the income from which is utilised for the purpose of such institution. As the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suits were fully maintainable under law and consequently the judgments and decrees of the Small Cause Court and the District Judge were perfectly valid and enforceable. Besides putting forth such contentions, the appellant school, by way of abundant caution also filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for amending the plaint by correcting the name of the plaintiff into Smt. Chandramukhi Ram Saran Shiksha Samiti by Secretary Om Prakash in place of the name of the Bal Niketan Nursery School by Manager Dr. Om Prakash. The High Court declined to uphold the contentions of the appellant school as in its view Clause (14) of the Constitution of the Registered Society contained a specific provision to the following effect. All the legal proceedings by the Society and against the Society will be done either by the Manager or by the Secretary or by a person authorised by them and as such, the appellant school was not a juristic person and only the registered society.had the authority and competence to file the suits. The High Court, therefore, held that the suits filed by the appellant school were not maintainable and consequently the judgments and decrees passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esented by Dr. Om Prakash and thereby Clause (14) of the Constitution of the Soceity stands satisfied. (5) Even if a hyper-technical view is to prevail requiring the suits to be filed only in the name of the Registered Society through its Secretary/Manager, the High Court should have allowed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and disposed of the Writ Petitions on merits instead of quashing the concurrent findings of the courts below and remitting the suits to the Small Cause Court for fresh disposal after dealing with the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions of Mr. Kacker and strenuously argued that the appellant is not a recognised school but even if it is treated as a recognised institution under the U.P. Basic Education Act and even if the sale deed pertaining to the land and super- structures has been obtained in the name of the school, it is only the Registered Society which can lawfully institute suits on behalf of the school or defend actions against it and that Clause (14) of the Constitution of the Society has overriding effect, and hence the suits filed by the appellant school are not maintainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase price may have been provided by the society. It is not in dispute that the sale deed pertaining to the land and the super-structures has been obtained in the name of the school. Even as a benami owner of the property, the appellant is entitled in law to preserve and protect it and to institute actions in that behalf so long as they do not conflict with the rights of the society. As a corollary to this proposition it follows that the appellant constitutes the landlord of the tenants after the property was purchased in its name and rents from the tenants became to be collect- ed. Once a jural relationship of landlord and tenants was formed between the appellant and the tenants by operation of law the appellant's right to initiate actions against the tenants for recovery of arrears of rent or recovery of possession of the leased property cannot be questioned or disputed. Even if we are to close our eyes to the right of the appellant to file suits against the tenants in its capacity as a recognised institution or as the ostensible owner of the property or as the landlord of the tenants and are to judge the status of the appellant solely with reference to Clause (14) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if the court is satisfied that a bona fide mistake has occurred in the filing of the suit in the name of the wrong person then the court should set right matters in exercise of its powers under Order 1 Rule 10 and promote the cause of justice. The courts have gone so far as to hold that even if the suit had been instituted in the name of a person who had no competence to file the suit, the courts should set right matters by ordering the addition or substitution of the proper plaintiff for ensuring the due dispensation of jus- tice. We may only refer to a few decisions in this behalf. In Hughes v. The Pump House Hotel Company Limited (No. 2), [1902] 2 Kings Bench 485) a dispute was raised regarding the competence of the plaintiff to file a suit because doubts were cast as to whether the plaintiff had made an absolute assignment of his claim against the defendants, or only an assignment by way of charge. Thereupon an applica- tion was made under Order XVI Rule 2 (corresponding to Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) for substitution of another person as plain- tiff. The application was allowed and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal and it was pointed out that the fact that the original pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of the wrong person as plaintiff and to ensure that honest plaintiffs do not suffer. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, (A.I.R. 1963 SC 786) it was held that in proceedings for a writ of certiorari it is not only the Tribunal or Authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also the parties in whose favour the said order is issued who are necessary parties and that it is in the discretion of the court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a party to the writ or on application filed at the instance of such proper party. In Murari Mohan Deo v. Secretary to Government of India, [1985] 3 SCC 120 the dismissal of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Judicial Commissioner was challenged by the appellant therein. The Judicial Commissioner found that the appellant who was a forester in the employment of Tripura Government had been wrongly removed from service by an order of compulsory retirement but nevertheless refused to grant relief to the appellant because he had failed to implead the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
