1. Eviction suit by a religious and charitable trust against a tenant after terminating tenancy under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, claiming exemption from the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 309
1999(4) Supreme 243
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & V.N. Khare, JJ.
Retibai & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Nathooram & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2425 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2853 of 1999)
Decided on 12-3-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S.M. Rai, B.M. Sharma and T.N. Singh, Advocates.
Important Points
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.
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.
Subject
Property Law - Eviction
Act Referred
Headnote
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -Section 106-M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Sections 3(2) and 22-Suit for eviction-Trust properties-Plea that suit not maintainable as it was not based on any of grounds u/s 22 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act-Not tenable-Trust properties exempted from operation of Accommodation Control Act by notification dated 17.12.1998 - Notification valid-Suit rightly decreed. (Paras 5 to 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the notification exempting religious and charitable trusts from the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is valid, or if eviction requires grounds specified under Section 12 of the Act. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. The Supreme Court upheld the notification exempting Wakf and Trust properties, reversing the High Court's decision and distinguishing earlier rulings based on incomplete information. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Notifications issued by the State Government exempting religious and charitable trust properties from the operation of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act are valid and legally sustainable. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 9 )
6. Is the notification exempting religious and charitable trusts from the M.P. Accommodation Control Act valid?
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 3(2) of the Act, finding sufficient material for the State Government to grant such exemptions. (Para 6 )
7. Does a landlord of an exempted trust property need to prove grounds under Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for eviction?
No. When properties are exempted from the operation of the Act via notification, the landlord can file for eviction straightaway after terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. (Para 4 , 6 )
8. What is the effect of a Supreme Court reversal of a High Court decision regarding the validity of an exemption notification?
The Supreme Court's categorical finding that a notification exempting Wakf and Trust properties is valid overrides previous High Court decisions that had quashed such notifications. (Para 6 , 7 )
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 State of M.P.
