1. The substantial question of law involved in this second appeal and to be answered is as under:

"Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the finding of the trial Court decreeing the suit and thereby dismissing the suit ignoring the fact that suit accommodation is exempted from the operation of provisions of Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and for eviction of the tenant/defendant only termination of the tenancy in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is required?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred in the instant judgment as were referred in the suit.]

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

(2.1) Rishabhdeo Mandir, a public trust registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (henceforth 'the Act of 1951') along with its 5 trustees filed a civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent against Mahadeolal Agrawal pleading inter alia that first plaintiff Rishabhdeo Mandir is a religious institution. The accommodation owned by the first plaintiff is exempted from the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act of 1961'). The tenancy of defendant Mahadeolal Agrawal was terminated in accordance with law by serving a notice dated 4-4-1992 (Ex.P-2) with effect from midnight of 30-4-1992 and the defendant/tenant was asked to vacate the suit accommodation with effect from 1-5-1992, but neither the suit accommodation was vacated nor the arrears of rent was paid by the defendant/tenant leading to filing of the suit for eviction and arrears of rent.

(2.2) The defendant/tenant filed his written statement resisting the suit stating inter alia that though the first plaintiff is a religious institution and second to sixth plaintiffs are trustees of the first plaintiff/trust yet the trustees/second to sixth plaintiffs are not authorised to sign and verify the plaint. It was further pleaded that notification dated 7-9-1989 issued by the State Government exempting public trusts from the provisions of the Act of 1961 has been held to be ultra vires, therefore, the present suit filed for eviction and arrears of rent is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

3. The trial Court, after a full fledged trial, by judgment and decree dated 4-3-2002, decreed the suit finding inter alia that-

(i) the first plaintiff is a religious institution registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Act of 1951,

(ii) the notification dated 7-9-1989 issued by the State Government exempting the public trusts from the provisions of the Act of 1961 was declared unconstitutional by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 MPLJ 597, but, later on, the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court declaring the notification dated 7-9-1989 as unconstitutional was set aside by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chintamani Agarwal, Civil Appeal No.9909/1995 decided on 19-10-1995, therefore, the public trust properties are exempted from the operation of the Act of 1961 and (iii) the defendant's monthly tenancy had been terminated by serving 15 days' clear notice dated 4-4-1992 (Ex.P-2) with effect from midnight of 30-4-1992 and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for vacant possession of the suit accommodation and arrears of rent.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit, defendant/tenant Mahadeolal Agrawal preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'the CPC'). The first appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 22-12-2004, allowed the appeal finding inter alia that-

(i) the first plaintiff is a religious institution and second to sixth plaintiffs are trustees of the said religious institution and they are entitled to sign and verify the plaint and (ii) the defendant/tenant has not acted co