1. Suit for ejectment of tenant — Applicability of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act — Validity of exemption notification under Section 3(2). (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 436
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : K.Venkataswami
Mangilal
Versus
Chuturbhuja Mandir
Case No. : 12559 of 1996
Date of Decision : 4/1/98
Important Points
In the absence of a valid notification under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, a landlord cannot file a simple suit for ejectment and must comply with the provisions of the Act.
Subject
Civil Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 3(2) - Notification exempting religious or charitable institutions - Validity of notification - Notification declared unconstitutional and invalid by the High Court - Landlord cannot file a suit simpliciter for ejectment without resorting to the provisions of the Act in the absence of a valid notification. (Paras 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
A tenant was facing a suit for ejectment filed by a religious institution. The suit was proceeded with on the basis that the provisions of the relevant accommodation control act were not applicable. The High Court upheld the decree for ejectment, reasoning that a previous judgment declaring a notification under Section 3(2) of the Act as unconstitutional applied only to a specific type of trust and not to the respondent institution.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in limiting the scope of the judgment that declared the notification dated 7/9/1989 unconstitutional and invalid. Since the notification was held to be invalid, there was no effective exemption under Section 3(2) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the respondent could file a suit for ejectment without following the provisions of the Accommodation Control Act based on a notification that had been declared unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a valid notification under Section 3(2) of the Act, the respondent cannot file a suit simpliciter for ejectment and must instead resort to the provisions of the Accommodation Control Act.
Result: Judgment of the High Court set aside and the suit for ejectment stands dismissed.
Facts of the case:
A tenant was facing a suit for ejectment filed by a religious institution. The suit was proceeded with on the basis that the provisions of the relevant accommodation control act were not applicable. The High Court upheld the decree for ejectment, reasoning that a previous judgment declaring a notification under Section 3(2) of the Act as unconstitutional applied only to a specific type of trust and not to the respondent institution.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in limiting the scope of the judgment that declared the notification dated 7/9/1989 unconstitutional and invalid. Since the notification was held to be invalid, there was no effective exemption under Section 3(2) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the respondent could file a suit for ejectment without following the provisions of the Accommodation Control Act based on a notification that had been declared unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a valid notification under Section 3(2) of the Act, the respondent cannot file a suit simpliciter for ejectment and must instead resort to the provisions of the Accommodation Control Act.
Result: Judgment of the High Court set aside and the suit for ejectment stands dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the suit for ejectment was maintainable as a civil suit simpliciter or whether the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act applied due to an invalid exemption notification. (Para 1 )
3. The High Court erred in restricting the effect of a judgment declaring the exemption notification unconstitutional to Wakf properties, as the notification was held invalid generally. (Para 2 )
4. In the absence of a valid notification under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, a suit for ejectment must comply with the Act's provisions. (Para 2 , 4 )
5. High Court judgment set aside and the suit for ejectment dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Does a suit for ejectment require compliance with the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act if no valid exemption notification exists?
Yes. In the absence of a valid notification under Section 3(2) of the Act, a respondent cannot file a suit simpliciter for ejectment and must instead resort to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. What is the legal consequence when a notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act is declared unconstitutional?
When a notification issued under Section 3(2) is held to be unconstitutional and invalid, the effect is that there is no notification in existence to exempt the accommodation from the Act's provisions. (Para 2 )
8. Can a court limit the application of a judgment declaring a notification unconstitutional to a specific category of property if the judgment was general?
No. If a court has expressly held a notification to be unconstitutional and invalid, that finding applies generally and cannot be restricted to a specific category, such as Wakf, unless the judgment itself was limited to that category. (Para 2 )
(1) THOUGH notice was served on the respondent none appears for the respondent. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was a tenant under the respondent herein. The respondent filed a normal civil suit for ejectment of the appellant. The suit was proceeded with as if the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter called "the Act") are not applicable. The suit was dismissed. The appeal was allowed. A second appeal was filed in the High court. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the High court that the Act applies inasmuch as the notification issued under Section 3(2 of the said Act was held by a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh in Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal v. State of M.P. to be unconstitutional and invalid. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The High court was of the view that the said judgment will not apply to the present case by a Mandir as that case was decided with reference to a Wakf. On that ground, the High court upheld the decree for ejectment.
(2) WE are of the view that the High court was not right in proceeding as if the notification issued under Section 3(2 of the Act was considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the said judgment with reference to its application for Wakf alone. The division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court after referring to judgments of this court has expressly held that the notification dated 7/9/1989 was unconstitutional and invalid. The effect of that was that there was no notification under Section 3(2 of the Act. Section 3(2 of the Act reads as follows:
"3 .Act not to apply to certain accommodations.-(1 * * *
(2 The government 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 or maternity home, the whole of the income derived from which is utilised for that institution or nursing home or maternity home."
(3) THE notification issued on 7/9/1989 under the above section reads as follows:
"NOTIFICATION No. F-24-(4-83-XXXII-1, dated the 7/09/1989.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Ss. (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;
FROM all the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (No. XLI of 1961."
(4) IN the absence of such notification the respondent cannot file a suit simpliciter for ejectment without resorting to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was not brought to our notice that any other notification was subsequently issued. In the circumstances, the a judgment of the High court is set aside and the suit for ejectment stands dismissed.
