Important Point
Notification dated 12.12.1998 issued under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act exempting application of Act to Trust properties is valid and suit for eviction u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act could be maintained.

Judgment

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-Leave granted.

2. Babulal was the tenant of a shop belonging to a temple managed by Phool Maliyan Samaj Mandir Trust, Bhopal (the ‘Trust’, for short), whose tenancy was determined by notice dated 14.9.1991 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In spite of the tenancy having been determined, Babulal did not vacate the premises. Consequently, the respondents, who were the Trustees of the Trust, instituted a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge, Bhopal, against Babulal for his eviction. It was pleaded that since the property in question belonged to the religious and charitable Trust, it was exempted from the operation of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (the ‘Act’, for short) as provided by Section 3(2) thereof.

3. The suit was contested by Babulal, who filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations and pleaded that the suit was liable to be dismissed as it was not based on any of the grounds specified in Section 12 of the Act.

4. The suit was decreed on 8.12.1997, against which an appeal was filed, but before it could be disposed of by the Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, the original tenant died and was substituted by the present appellants as his heirs and legal representatives. The appeal was ultimately dismissed on 28th September, 1998. The second appeal filed in the High Court was dismissed on 17.12.1998. The trial Court as also the lower appellate court and the High Court held that on account of Notification issued on 7.9.1989, the properties belonging to religious and charitable trusts were exempted from the operation of the Act and consequently it was not incumbent upon the respondent-landlords to have filed the suit for eviction of tenant on the grounds set out under Section 12 of the Act and that they could file the suit for eviction straightaway after terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Notification dated 7th September, 1989 has already been held to be bad by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Chintamani Mahender Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh1. He also contended that this Court in Mangi­lal v. Shri Chuturbhuja Mandir2 has also held the Notification to be bad. It is, in these circumstances, contended that the suit of the respondents was liable to be dismissed and the appellants cannot be evicted from the premises in question, except by invoking any of the grounds set out in Section 12 of the Act. The pleas raised by the counsel for the appellants, in our opinion, have no substance.

6. The decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Chintamani’s case (supra) was challenged in an appeal filed in this Court by the State of Madhya Pradesh which was disposed of by a Bench of which one of us (Saghir Ahmad, J.) was a member and the Notifica­tion dated 9th September, 1989, by which the properties belonging to public charitable trusts and Wakf were exempted, was upheld. It was, in that judgment held, inter alia, as under:-

“The State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the powers under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (the Act), exempted all buildings owned by the Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board (Board) from the operation of the Act. The Notification dated September 7, 1989 granting exemption to the Board under the above-mentioned provision of the Act was challenged before the High Court. The High Court quashed the Notification on the short ground that there was no material before the State Government to reach the satisfaction that it was necessary to issue the impugned Notification.

Learned counsel for the State of M.P. has invited our attention to the letter dated March 26, 1976, by the then Prime Minister of India addressed to the Chief Minister of the State of M.P., suggesting, for the reasons given in the said letter, to grant exemption of the provi­sions of the Act to the properties owned by the Wakf. Thereafter, the Sta