Mumbai, Dec 04: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust seeking to recover Rs 17.20 crore from its former permanent trustee, Niket Mehta.
The trust aimed to recover the amount for Mehta’s occupation of a flat and an office space within the Lilavati Hospital building for several years.
HC Says Mandatory Consent Not Obtained
Justice Milind Jadhav, on Wednesday, rejected the suit primarily because the trust failed to obtain the mandatory consent of the Charity Commissioner, as required under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts (MPT) Act, 1950.
Trust Accused Former Trustee Of Using Hospital Premises
The trust had approached the high court in December 2024, alleging that Mehta, who served as a permanent trustee from 2001 to 2023, improperly used a 2,849-sqft flat on the 12th floor as a family residence from January 2007 to April 2015, and a 360-sqft office for approximately two years.
Mehta Sought Rejection Of Suit Citing Statutory Bar
Mehta subsequently moved to have the suit rejected, arguing that the litigation was barred under Section 80 of the MPT Act due to non-compliance with the statutory mandate, specifically the need for the Charity Commissioner’s consent.
Trust Called Him Trespasser, But Court Disagrees
The trust countered, asserting that Mehta was not a validly appointed trustee and was therefore a "rank trespasser" who illegally utilized the premises, making him liable to pay.
However, the court refused to accept this argument. Justice Jadhav pointed out that the trust itself had described Mehta as a "former permanent trustee" in several parts of its complaint.
The court also noted that an exhibit from 2009 addressed Mehta as "permanent Trustee of Plaintiff No.1 – Trust" and acknowledged that he was "discharging his obligations as a Trustee of the Trust generally." The objection against him only pertained to his occupation of the properties.
Court Observes Contradiction In Trust’s Stand
Justice Jadhav stated, “Once it is prima facie seen from the averments in the suit plaint that plaintiff no. 1 – trust has described defendant (Mehta) as a trustee/ ex-trustee/ erstwhile trustee/ permanent trustee of the trust, then in the same breath, plaintiffs cannot contend that defendant will have to be construed as a rank trespasser.”
Also Watch:
Suit Rejected Under MPT Act
Given the trust’s acknowledgment of Mehta’s status as a trustee, the court held that Section 50 read with Section 51 of the MPT Act applied. Therefore, consent from the Charity Commissioner was mandatory for the trust to sue for the recovery of compensation from a trustee/ex-trustee for the occupation of trust properties. Since this consent was not obtained, the suit was rejected.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
