K.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THESE four connected writ petitions have been preferred by the four tenants occupying four different portions of a premises situated at Hardwar. Prabhu Dayal Trust itself was established long time back at Peshawar. It was running a Musafirkhana, a Dharamshala, and a hospital at Amritsar. The trust was public charitable purposes. After partition in 1947, its field of activities were confind to India. For facility of pilgrims at Hardwar, the Prabhu Dayal Trust purchased half portion of a building, situated at Upper Road, Hardwar, for a sum of Rs.30,000/- under a sale deed dated 28th December, 1967. At the time of its purchase, different portions of this premises were in occupation of different tenants. The petitioners were also the tenants of four different portions of the said premises. As the Prabhu Dayal Trust wanted to establish a Dharmshala in the disputed premises, it obtained licence required by the by-laws framed by the Municipal Board, Hardwar.
(2.) ON 9.12.1975, the Prabhu Dayal Trust filed four applications against the petitioners for release of the portions in their occupation on the ground that the same were required by the Trust for its objects. The object mentioned in the applications was that the Trust wanted to convert the premises in dispute into a Dharamshala in order to keep the accommodation available for pilgrims. The applications were contested by the tenants on the ground that a considerable accommodation was already lying vacant in the building of the Trust and it did not require any further accommodation for its occupation. The tenants claimed that the need set up by the Prabhu Dayal Trust was not bona fide, and that they would suffer greater hardship in case the applications made by the Trust were allowed. Both the parties filed affidavits and also some documentary evidence.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority upheld the case of the Prabhu Dayal Trust and, accordingly, allowed the application filed under Section 21(1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The appeals preferred against the aforesaid judgment were dismissed. Hence, these petitions. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as the Prabhu Dayal Trust did not file a copy of the document under which it was created, the courts below committed an error in holding that the Prabhu Dayal Trust was a trust for public charitable purposes, and that it could file the aforesaid applications under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act.;