IMPORTANT POINT
Exemption of M.P. Rent Control Act to certain properties is not conferred on the relationship of landlord and tenant but on the premises itself making it immune from operation of the Act.

ORDER

A suit for eviction filed by the appellant against the respondent has been directed to be dismissed by the two courts below. The High Court has dismissed the landlord s appeal in limine. This is an appeal filed by the landlord by special leave.

2. Vide notice Exh. P-4 issued on 1.11.1990 and served on 5.11.1990, the appellant terminated the tenancy of the respondent giving the later more than 15 day s time for vacating the suit premises, whereafter the suit was filed. Non-payment of rent by the respondent and the need of the plaintiff to occupy the suit premises for herself were pleaded as grounds of eviction. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court formed an opinion that the suit premises were governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter The Act , for short) and inasmuch as any ground for eviction under Section 12 of the Act was not made out as the appellant failed in proving the tenant to be a defaulter and the appellant s need for self occupation, the suit was directed to be dismissed. One of the pleas raised by the landlord from the very beginning was that because the ownership in the suit premises vested in the municipality, the applicability of The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was not attracted and entitlement for eviction was to be decided under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1961 only. Both the courts below held that though the ownership of the premises vests in the municipality yet as the plaintiff was not a municipality the applicability of the Act was not excluded. In our opinion, the courts below have committed a gross error of law and, therefore, their judgments are vitiated. The High Court ought to have entertained the appeal and should not have dismissed the same in limine.

3. It will suffice for the purpose of this appeal to state the admitted relevant facts in brief. The suit premises are non-residential, situated in the city of Khargaon in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The ownership of the premises vests in the municipal council. The appellant took the premises from the municipal council on lease and sub-let the same to the respondent herein. Thus qua the municipality, appellant is the tenant and the respondent is sub-tenant and as between the latter two, appellant is the landlord and respondent is the tenant.

Section 3(1) of the Act provides as under:-

"Sec. 3. Act not to apply to certain accommodation.-(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to-

(a) accommodation which is the property of the Government [Central Govt. or any State Govt.]

(b) accommodation which is the property of a local authority used exclusively for non-residential purposes."

4. It is well settled by a decision of this Court in Bhatia Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. D.C. Patel (1953) 4 SCR 185 wherein pari materia provisions contained in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 came up for consideration of this Court. It was held that the exemption is not conferred on the relationship of landlord and tenant but on the premises itself making it immune from the operation of the Act. In identical facts, as the present case is, the decision of this Court was followed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Radheylal Somsingh vs. Ratansingh Kishansingh 1977 MPLJ, 335 and it was held that the immunity from operation of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is in respect of the premises and not with respect to the parties. If a tenant in municipal premises lets out the premises to another, a suit by the tenant for ejectment of his tenant and arrears of rent would not be governed by the Act as the premises are exempt under Section 3(1)(b) of Act though the suit is not between the municipality as landlord and against its tenant. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Radheylal s case. It is unfortunate that this decision binding in the S