- (1.) Raising a short controversy the present revision is at the instance of the tenant. It has been filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 14th of September, 2006 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 1999: Jhunjhunwala Charity Trust v. Puneet Kumar Agrawal. House No. D-48/139, Hanuman Katra, Mishra Pokhra situate in district Varanasi, is the property in dispute which belongs to plaintiff trust. The said trust is a public charity trust. The defendant applicant herein was the tenant of two shops situate on the ground floor of the said property wherein he is carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Confectionery House and is also selling electrical goods. The shops were let to on a monthly rent of Rs. 550/- per month. The suit giving rise to the present revision was filed by the trust namely Jhunjhunwala Charity Trust through its one of the trustees namely Deena Nath Jhunjhunwala, on the ground that the defendant tenant is a bad paymaster and is in arrears of rent since January, 1991, whose tenancy has been determined by a notice dated 29.1.1998 demanding the arrears of rent since June, 1991 to December, 1997 for 84 months amounting to Rs. 46,200/-. The tenancy was also terminated. The suit was contested on a number of pleas including that Deena Nath Jhunjhunwala was not authorised to institute the suit on behalf of the trust. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court framed five points for determination and decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 14th of September, 2006. It has been found that Deena Nath Jhunjhunwala is one of the trustees and being one of the trustees is authorised to file the suit. The Trial Court has found that the defendant tenant is defaulter in payment of rent and the tenancy has been validly terminated by giving notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
(2.) In the present revision, the learned Counsel for the applicant could submit only one point that Deena Nath Jhunjhunwala was not authorised to institute the suit in question. The submission is that there is no material on record to show that being a trustee, he was authorised at any point of time to institute the suit. On the other hand, the record shows that another trustee was authorised to do the needful with respect to the tenanted properties.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the plaintiff opposite party, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment.;