Rambabu Gupta And 3 Others vs Shri Ganesh Ji Maharaj Virajman on 6 February, 2025
10. From the bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that public charitable trust or public religious institutions have been taken out from the purview of the Act No. 13 of 1972 and thus in these circumstances even though the relevant portion of the clause a of Sub-section 1 Section 21 ought to have been deleted but they remained a statute. In my considered view even if this provision remained unamended, it got rendered otiose as this provision chiefly speaks of public trust. Thus, the said part of provision would not be attracted in the present case as it is admittedly a private trust and not a public trust. The judgment of the Bombay High Court refers to the identical provision of the Act. Upon reading of the relevant paragraph 1 it clearly transpires that public charitable trust fall within the purview of the Bombay Act. The Coordinate Bench discussed the relevant provision of the said Act and the intendment of the legislature to the effect that protection has been granted to serve the purpose of the trust and its object and not the individual beneficiary. Upon repeated query being made learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner, could not point out any provision of the Bombay Act to demonstrate that in the said Act also public charitable trusts are no more amenable to jurisdiction of the Rent Authorities under the said Act. Besides that I find that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Genda Lal (Supra) has rightly observed that after the amending act came into force the public charitable trusts no more are amenable to rent authority jurisdiction qua rights under the Act of 1972 but the private trusts do and the last part of provisions as have remained unamended under Section 21(1) (a) therefore, shall not apply to a private trust.