- (1.) Heard Sri Krishna Ji Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sripat for respondent No. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 3-landlord filed a Suit No. 23 of 1997 for eviction of petitioner-tenant from the premises in dispute, claiming it a religious and charitable Institution and, therefore, by virtue of section 2(1)(bb) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short "Act 1972") the said Act is not maintainable. The Trial Court recorded a finding on this issue against the plaintiff-landlord and held that it is applicable and dismissed the suit. The Revisional Court however has reversed the findings of Trial Court and decreed the suit after framing its own issues.
(2.) Sri Krishna Ji Khare submitted that only on account of the reference to the statement of D.W. 1, Sri Radhey Shyam Kushwaha (the petitioner) that there is a 'Statue' of Sri Ram Krishna Param Hans Devji in respondent No. 3-Ashram where he used to visit for his 'Darshan', the Revisional Court has held that respondent No. 3-landlord is an 'Ashram' and a 'public religious trust'. It has not discussed at all so as to how constitute it a 'public religious trust' in terms of the definition under section 3(s) of the Act 1972.
(3.) There is no discussion in the revisional order. It is not clear as to what evidence respondent No. 3 adduced to show that it is a 'public religious trust' except of placing its trust-deed. In the circumstances, it is beyond comprehension, why Revisional Court has recorded a different finding based on no material. Sri Krishna Ji Khare further contended that the landlord-Ashram is claimed to be a 'Math' although, could not show any material or authority to substantiate submission on this aspect. In the Revisional Court's judgment, it has been said to be a 'Math' without looking to the necessary aspects. In legal parlance, what constitutes religion or religious endowment or a 'Math', has been discussed in various authorities but none has been considered by the Revisional Court.;