BAL NIKETAN NURSERY SCHOOL versus KESARI PRASAD

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 15-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BAL NIKETAN NURSERY SCHOOL 
v. 
>... 
KESARI PRASAD 
JULY 15, 1987 
J-
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S'. NATARAJAN, JJ.) 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 1 Rule 10--Bona fide mis-
~ 
take in filing suit in name of wrong person-Duty of Court to set right 
mistake by ordering addition I substitution of the proper plaintiff. 
_. 
c 
U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972-School recognised under the 
Act-Exempted from provisions of Rent Act-Proceedings instituted to 
-
impugn recognition of school-Do not affect status of school at time 
eviction suits were filed by school. 
~ 
U. P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction 
D Act, 1972-Section 2( 1) (b )-Landlord-A recognised school-Exemp-
ted from provisions of Act entitled to file suits through Manager for 
eviction of tenants. 
'1-
Section 2(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, 
Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 lays down that "nothing in this Act shall 
E apply to any building belonging to or vested in a recognised institution, 
the whole of the income from which is utilised for the purpose of such 
institution." 
~ 
The manager of the appellant school, a recognised institution 
under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, run and managed by a 
F Registered Society issued notice of termination of tenancy to the four 
tenants of the super-structures (Khaprails) purchased by it, under Sec-
~ 
lion 106 of. the Transfer of Property Act and demanded surrender of 
possession. As the tenants failed to surrender possession, be filed sepa· 
rate suits against the four tenants for ejectment and payment of arrears 
of rent. The respondent and the other tenants contended that the school 
G was not a recognised educational institution entitled to the benefit of 
Section 2(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and Eviction Act, 1972 and that the notice of termination of tenancy ~~ 
was not valid. The trial court rejected the contentions of the tenants and 
decreed the suits in favour of the school. The revisional court confirmed 
the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed all the revision 
H petitions. 
510 
--~~ -
-
BAL NIKETAN v. K. PRASAD 
511 
In the writ petitions before the High Court, it was contended for 
the first time that the appellant school was not a juristic person and was 
not, therefore, entitled to file the suits through its manager. It was 
submitted on behalf of the school that as a recognised institution under 
the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, it has juristic status, that the suit 
had been instituted by a person who was not only the manager of the 
school but also the secretary of the Registered Society and as such the 
suits were fully maintainable under law. The appellant school, also filed 
a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for amend-
ing the plaint by correcting the name of the plaintiff into the name of the 
Society by its secretary in place of the name of the school by its manager. 
A 
B 
The High Court held that in view of the specific provision in 
C 
Clause (14) of the Constitution of the Registered Society to the effect 
that "all the legal proceedings by the Society and against the Society 
will be done either by the Manager or by the Secretary or by a person 
authorised by them", the appellant school was not a juristic person and 
only the Registered Society had the authority and competence to file the _ 
suits and that the suits filtd by the appellant school were not maintain-
D 
able. It quashed the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below 
in three suits since the fourth suit had been compromised after the filing 
of the writ petition. 
Insofar as the application under Order 1 Rule 10 was concerned 
the High Court held that the proper course for the appellant school was 
E 
to move the trial court for getting the description of the appellant cor-
rected and then pursue the proceedings for eviction. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, this Court, 
HELD: 1. It is well settled that if the court is satisfied that a bona 
F 
fide mistake has occurred in the filing of the suits in the name of the 
wrong person, then the court should set right matters in exercise of 
its powers under Order 1 Rule 10 and promote the cause of justice. 
The Courts have also held that even if the suit had been instituted in 
the name of a person who had no competence to file the snit, the 
courts should set right matters by ordering the addition or substitu-
G 
lion of the prop

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.