Introduction:

In Niket Mehta v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust & Ors., the Bombay High Court was called upon to decide whether a public trust could institute a civil suit seeking compensation from its former trustee without complying with Sections 50 and 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust had filed Suit No. 23 of 2025 seeking recovery of over ₹17 crores for the occupation and use of a flat and an office located on the 3rd floor of Lilavati Hospital by its former trustee between 2007 and 2015, alleging misuse of his position as a permanent trustee. The defendant, who was consistently described in the plaint and accompanying documents as a trustee, permanent trustee, or erstwhile trustee, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC contending that the suit was barred by law since the Trust had not obtained the mandatory written consent of the Charity Commissioner as required under Section 51 for suits covered under Section 50 of the MPT Act. The Trust, however, attempted to characterize the defendant as a trespasser whose actions fell outside the scope of Sections 50 and 51. Justice Milind N. Jadhav examined the pleadings and documentary record to determine whether the nature of the defendant’s relationship with the Trust and the reliefs sought would attract the statutory requirement of prior consent, ultimately holding that the suit could not proceed for want of compliance with the MPT Act.

Arguments of the Plaintiff Trust:

The plaintiff Trust argued that the defendant’s occupation of the flat and office within the hospital premises between 2007 and 2015 was wholly unauthorized and fell within the realm of trespass, thereby making the claim one for recovery of possession and damages from a wrongful occupant rather than a proceeding against a trustee. On this basis, the Trust contended that the present suit did not attract Section 50 of the MPT Act and therefore did not require the prior written consent of the Charity Commissioner under Section 51. The Trust further submitted that although the defendant previously served as a permanent trustee until December 2023, the acts complained of – namely the continued use and occupation of the suit premises – were personal wrongs for which he could be sued directly. By classifying the defendant as a trespasser, the Trust attempted to bring the suit within the general jurisdiction of the civil court rather than the special statutory procedure under the MPT Act, insisting that recovery of compensation for unauthorized occupation by a former trustee stood outside the purview of Section 50. The Trust thus urged the Court to dismiss the Order VII Rule 11 application and allow the suit to proceed as framed, arguing that the statutory consent requirement was inapplicable to the facts presented.

Arguments of the Defendant:

The defendant argued that the plaint itself unequivocally described him as a trustee, permanent trustee, or erstwhile trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, and that the documents annexed to the plaint, including correspondences, internal communications, and earlier pleadings, reinforced this position. He submitted that the occupation of the premises took place during his tenure as permanent trustee, and any alleged misuse of position or breach of fiduciary duty was directly connected with his official capacity. Therefore, the reliefs sought by the Trust—recovery of compensation, damages, and other directions in relation to trust property—squarely fell under the categories of suits contemplated by Section 50 of the MPT Act. Since Section 51 mandates written consent from the Charity Commissioner prior to instituting such suits, the absence of such consent rendered the plaint barred by law. The defendant emphasized that the Trust could not selectively portray him as a trespasser merely to circumvent statutory requirements, particularly when it had repeatedly and formally acknowledged his status as a trustee for decades. On these grounds, he sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as being institutionally defective and incurably barred without compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure.

Court’s Judgment:

The Bombay High Court held that a holistic reading of the plaint and its annexures clearly established that the defendant had been treated and acknowledged by the Trust as a trustee, permanent trustee, or erstwhile trustee throughout the relevant period. Justice Milind N. Jadhav emphasized that once the plaintiff’s own pleadings made out a case that the defendant was occupying the premises during his tenure as trustee and had allegedly misused his position, the suit was undeniably one falling within the nature of suits contemplated under Section 50 of the MPT Act, attracting the mandatory requirement of prior consent under Section 51. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to reclassify the defendant as a mere trespasser, noting that such a characterization was inconsistent with the Trust’s own documentation and admissions. Observing that Section 51 expressly requires “persons having an interest in a public trust” to obtain written consent from the Charity Commissioner before filing any suit covered by Section 50, and that such consent must follow an enquiry, the Court held that the suit as filed was institutionally barred. Since no such consent had been obtained, the suit was not maintainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11(d) and rejected the plaint as being barred under Section 50 read with Section 51 of the MPT Act. All pending applications were disposed of in light of this decision.