IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was not in error in taking a view that plaintiffs were entitled for a decree as passed by the trial Court relying on (1999) 6 SCC 368.

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-Leave granted.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for the eviction from the house and shop given to them on rent. The plaintiff no.1 is a religious institution registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendants filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the decree passed by the trial court. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal finding no merit in it. Hence, this appeal.

3. Before the High Court, findings of fact were not disputed. The only ground urged was that plaintiff No. 1 has failed to plead and prove that it is a religious/charitable trust and it was not entitled to get the benefit of exemption notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act ); consequently, it was necessary for the plaintiff No.1 to have made out a ground under Section 12(1) of the Act for getting a decree in view of the decision in the case of Boolchand vs. Atal Ram Sindhi Dharamshala Trust [1998 (1) MPWN 113]. The High Court relying on the decision of this Court in Betibai and Others vs. Nathooram and Others [(1999) 6 SCC 368] held that the plaintiffs were entitled for a decree as passed by the trial Court.

4. Shri. U.N. Bachawat, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants urged that the High Court committed an error in taking a view that the plaintiffs were entitled for benefit of exemption notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Act in the light of the decision in the case of Betibai aforementioned. He contended that it was not established that whole of the rental income from the suit accommodation was utilized for the purpose of the trust, neither there was relevant material nor consideration by the Government before issuing exemption notification and that such a notification could not be general in nature. He sought to distinguish the case of Betibai (supra) on the ground that the exemption notification considered in the case of S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [(1985) 1 SCC 290] was not identical to the one, which is applicable to the present case.  He urged that there is a conflict between Betibai s case (supra) and State of M.P. vs. Kanhaiyalal [1970 MPLJ 973] case on the question whether the exemption notification can be general or it should be regarding a particular accommodation. As such, the controversy may require consideration by larger bench of this Court.

5. On the other hand, Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court, having considered all aspects and the submissions made before it, has rightly followed the case of this Court in Betibai case (supra) and no fault can be found with the impugned judgment.

6. In order to appreciate the respective contentions advanced on behalf of the parties it may be useful to look to Section 3(2) of the Act and the Exemption Notification issued thereunder, which read:-

"3(2) The Government (Central Govt.) may, by notification, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act any accommodation which is owned by any educational, religious or charitable institution or by any nursing of maternity home, the whole of the income derived from which is utilized for that institution or nursing home or maternity home."

"Notification No. F-24-(4)-83-XXXII-I Dated 7th September, 1989, published in M.P. Rajpatra of the same date on p.2144.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (No. XLI of 1961), the State Government hereby exempts all the accommodation owned by -

(i) the Wakf, registered under the Wakf Act, 1954 (No.29 of 1954), or

(ii) the public trust registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (No. XXX of 1951) for an educational, religious or charitable purpose,

fro