- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. As ejectment of Basic Shiksha Parishad from a building in which it is running a primary school is involved in this writ petition, hence Court made extra efforts to ensure representation of Basic Shiksha Parishad and Basic Shiksha Adhikari at the time of arguments. On 19-2-2004 learned standing Counsel was requested to inform some responsible officer of Basic Shiksha Parishad regarding this case so that some one could appear on its behalf (order on the order-sheet ). On 15-3-2004 petitioner was directed to take (fresh) steps within three days to serve respondent No. 3 i. e. Basic Shiksha Parishad. Steps were taken and notices were issued in March, 2004 (earlier also notices were issued to respondent No. 3 as per office report dated 2-4-1985 ). On 12-4-2005 an order was passed on the order- sheet directing the case to be listed alongwith the name of Sri K. S. Shukla, learned standing Counsel for Basic Shiksha Parishad and learned Counsel for the petitioner was directed to supply copy of writ petition to him. Copy was supplied on 13-4-2005. The acknowledgment receipt of Sri K. S. Shukla has been filed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. On 20-4-2005 when arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard in this writ petition and judgment was reserved, it was observed as follows: "in this writ petition the Court made extra effort for the representation of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i. e. U. P. Basic Shiksha Adhikari. On the last date the case was directed to be listed for today showing the name of Shri K. S. Shukla who is at present standing Counsel of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, learned Counsel fort he petitioner was directed to supply a copy of writ petition to him which has been done and receipt has also been filed. The case is listed per-emptorily and has been taken in the revised list. It is most unfortunate that no one has appeared for the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Learned standing Counsel present in Court states that he does not represent Basic Shiksha Adhikari/ Parishad. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Judgment reserved. "
(2.) IN case some one had appeared on behalf of Basic Shiksha Parishad then the Court would have made efforts to persuade the parties to compromise the matter in view of the fact a that Basic School is being run in the building in dispute and ejectment would adversely affect the education of the children. Under Order XXVII, Rule 5-B C. P. C. it is provided that suits against Government (which includes statutory authority by virtue of U. P. amendment in the marginal heading of Order XXVII), it shall be the duty of the Court to make every endeavour where it is possible to assist the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of subject-matter of the suit. The Court became powerless in this regard due to non- representation of Basic Shiksha Parishad and Basic Shiksha Adhikari inspite of its best efforts. The learned standing Counsel for State of U. P. present in Court categorically stated that IN such matters where Basic Shiksha Parishad as well as Basic Shiksha Adhikari were parties he could not represent even Basic Shiksha Adhikari and only learned standing Counsel of Basic Shiksha Parishad could represent both of them. Original landlord petitioner Ram Chand since deceased and survived by legal representatives instituted the S. C. C. Suit No. 162 of 1982 on the file of J. S. C. C. Aligarh giving rise to the instant writ petition. There were only two defendants in the suit which were described as follows: (1) U. P. Basic Education Board through Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh. (2) Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh. The suit was filed for eviction of the defendants from the tenanted building in dispute in which a basic school is being run. In the plaint it was alleged that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U. P. Rent Control Act) was not applicable to the building in dispute, that defendants were tenant of the building in dispute and that since September, 1981 rent had not been paid and that tenancy was terminated through notice dated 29-3-1982. Written statement was filed on behalf of both the defendants. It was signed and verified by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh for defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In the written statement service of notice was not denied. Only its validity was questioned. J. S. C. C. Aligarh decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as well as pendente lite and future mesne profit at the agreed rate of rent of Rs. 75/- per month. The suit was decreed on 30-5-1982 by holding that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable and that defendants were defaulter. Trial Court also held that even though tenant deposited the rent in lump sum on 5-5-1984, but it could not confer any benefit upon the tenant. Against the judgment and decree passed by J. S. C. C. revision was filed being S. C. C. Revision No. 73 of 1984. The copy of memorandum of revision is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the revision revisionists were described as follows: (1) U. P. Basic Shiksha Board through Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh. (2) Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh.
(3.) IV Addl. District Judge, Aligarh allowed the revision and dismissed the suit on 7-1-1985 only and only on the ground that neither notice of termination of tenancy was served upon Basic Shiksha Parishad nor summons of the suit were served upon Basic Shiksha Parishad which was the tenant of the building in dispute by virtue of Section 18-A of U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The revisional Court held that notice of termination of tenancy and summons of the suit should have been served upon the Parishad through its Secretary and service of these two documents upon the Parishad through Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh was not good service in the eye of the law. The finding of the Trial Court regarding non- applicability of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was approved by the revisional Court. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the revisional Court. Under Section 3 (2) of U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 the Basic Shiksha Parishad or Basic Education Board may by its name sue and be sued under the U. P. Basic Education Act constitution of the Board is provided under Section 3 thereof. All the members of the Board are nominated by the State Government which are ex-officio Government employees. Under Section 2 (d) District Basic Education Officer (B. S. A.) is defined. Under Section 10 of the Act Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari is ex-officio, member of Zila Basic Shiksha Samiti in the rural areas in each District. Similarly for cities Nagar Basic Shiksha Samiti is to be established under Section 10-A of the said Act and Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari is ex-officio member or the said Samiti. The purpose of the aforesaid Samiti is also to administer the basic schools situate within the area of the District [section 10 (3) (i) read with Section 10-A (2) of the said Act].;