Chinnathambi Vs. N. Veerappa and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(h): [mohan shantanagoudar, j] applicability to co-operative societies held, the right to information act, 2005 is not applicable to co-operative societies, in as much as, co-operative societies cannot be treated as a public authority. there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner-society is neither owned nor funded or controlled by the state. in view of the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained. - the tenant clearly admitted that he took the tenancy of the schedule premises from the plaintiffs. hence, the said conclusions are well-founded.v. gopala gowda, j.1. appellant is tenant and defendant in the original suit. respondents are trustees of sri hanuman temple situated at town, bangalore and they are plaintiffs in the suit. for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties are referred to as 'plaintiffs' and 'tenant'.2. this appeal is preferred by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 6-3-1999 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and directing the tenant to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property within two months.3. the suit schedule property belongs to the trust and the appellant herein is the tenant of the same. the plaintiffs filed suit in o.s. no. 10963 of 1994 against the tenant on the ground that the premises is required for the bona fide use and occupation of the of the temple. it is the case of the plaintiffs that the archak is residing far away from the temple and it is difficult for him to perform the poojas in the morning and evening and it is also difficult for him to prepare prasadam. since the suit schedule premises is adjacent to the temple, the same is required to accommodate the archak. the tenant resisted the suit taking various pleas and denying the requirement of the petition schedule premises. the tenant prayed for dismissal of the suit. on the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed issues. parties adduced evidence and produced documents in support of their respective pleas. upon appreciation of the same, the trial court decreed the suit granting two months time to the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiffs. the legality and validity of the same is questioned in this appeal.3-a. i have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the judgment under appeal.4. the tenant denied that plaintiffs are the trustees; that the suit schedule property does not belong to the temple and that the same belongs to government. in view of the said stand taken in the written statement by the tenant, issues 1, 2 and 3 were framed and the same have been answered against the tenant. the trial court considered the oral evidence and the documents placed on record and placing reliance upon section 116 of the indian evidence act, it has been held that the tenant is from taking such contentions. the trial court took note of the fact that the tenant paid rents at the rate of rs. 155/- to the plaintiffs. under section 116 of the indian evidence act the tenant cannot deny title to the tenanted property. the tenant clearly admitted that he took the tenancy of the schedule premises from the plaintiffs. considering exs. p. 16, 18, 19, 22 and 26 to 44, wherein the first plaintiff is shown as dharmakartha and trustee, the trial court has held that it cannot be said that there was no trust. the aforesaid documents pertains to the period much earlier to the tenancy created between the parties. the categorical findings recorded by the trial court that the plaintiffs were the trustees of the temple and the suit schedule property belongs to the temple and it is not a government property, are based upon proper appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence and the relevant provisions of the statutes concerning the subject-matter. hence, the said conclusions are well-founded.5. so far as issue 4 pertaining to the requirement of the petition schedule premises by the plaintiffs is concerned, the trial court considered the pleadings and the evidence of the parties elaborately and answered the same in favour of the plaintiffs. it is no doubt true that the tenant denied the requirement pleaded by the plaintiffs. but, since the requirement of the plaintiffs was for accommodating the archak for the smooth performance of his duties, the trial court found that there cannot be any mala fides on the part of the plaintiffs in seeking the suit schedule premises from the tenant. the plea of the plaintiffs that the archak is residing at a far off place and they are finding it difficult to prepare the prasadam and performance of poojas in the temple on account of this, cannot be ignored. the schedule property being adjacent to the temple, the genuineness of the requirement pleaded by the plaintiffs cannot be doubted. the trial court was justified in holding that the petition schedule premises was required by the plaintiffs for accommodating the archak.6. one of the contention taken by the tenant is that the quit notice issued is not valid and consequently there is no valid termination of tenancy. an additional issue was framed in this regard and the trial court answered the same against the tenant. the notice issued has been examined by the trial court with reference to section 106 of the transfer of property act and held that there is clear 15 days notice issued to the tenant. another plea of the tenant is that the tenancy has not been terminated under section 47 of the indian trusts act. the trial court considered this plea and held that all the plaintiffs belong to a single family and the trust being a private trust, the notice issued by some of the plaintiffs is in conformity with section 47 of the indian trusts act. the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in this regard cannot be found fault with.7. for the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.8. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. the tenant shall vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiffs within one month.