Bombay HC: Trust is not required to file resolution for filing eviction suit if all trustees have filed suit

As held above, the trust properties vest on all trustees. Body of the Trust comprises of all the trustees of the Trust. It is, therefore, apparent that first of all, all the trustees have to decide whether or not suit is to be filed on behalf of the Trust. It has to be a joint or at least decision by majority. It cannot be disputed that the decision of the Trust must be reflected in the resolution passed in a meeting of the managing committee of the Trust. It is only through such resolution the trust can speak or disclose its mind that it has decided to file suit and authorised one of its trustees to sign and verify the plaint, to appoint or engage pleader to represent the interest of the Trust. In the instant case, it is nowhere mentioned in body of the plaint that the suit is being filed in pursuance of any such resolution passed by the managing committee of the appellant - Trust. Nowhere it is mentioned that Mr. V.K. Korani was authorised by all the trustees to represent interest of the Trust and that he is entitled to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the Trust. Thus, prima facie, suit has been filed without there being any authority in favour of Mr. Korani from the appellant-Pathshala Trust. The suit, thus, suffers from this additional substantial defect.

From the facts of the said case, it is clear that only one of the trustees had filed the suit and neither there was any pleading nor there was any evidence that the trustees had passed a resolution to, file a suit against the defendant and that the said trustee, who had filed the suit was authorised by all of the trustees to represent the Trust. If one or some of the trustees only filed the suit or such an application, this authority would be applicable, but where all the trustees have joined as the applicants in the application, that itself indicates that all the trustees had agreed and resolved to file the application for eviction. Therefore, it was not necessary to plead and prove that such a resolution was passed. In fact there was no question of authorisation of any particular trustee to file such an application because the application was filed by all the trustees jointly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application Nos. 1254, 1255 and 1256 of 2001

Decided On: 13.03.2008

 Minoo Rustomji Shroff Vs. Dali Kavasji Gai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.H. Bhatia, J.

Citation: 2008(4) MHLJ 71,2008(3) BCR 16

Print Page

How to decide issue of comparative hardship in eviction suit against tenant?

 To say that the Trustees of the petitioners are also members of the Jamaat and that Jamaat had several other properties, is certainly an irrelevant consideration. As long as, there is no material produced on record, this Trust itself owns any suitable property from where it could start the school, the issue of comparative hardship certainly cannot be decided in favour of the respondents. Besides, in the present case, considering the number of business activities which the respondents carry out through various premises located in Mahabaleshwar itself, the issue of comparative hardship will have to be decided against the respondents. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 1997 of 1995, Civil Application Nos. 2274 and 1351 of 2017

Decided On: 21.12.2018

Ranjanwadi Shikshan Trust Vs.  Govind N. Naidu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak, J.

Citation: 2019(4) MHLJ 38,2019(1) RCR 552

Print Page