1. This appeal u/s 32 of M.P. Accommodation Centro1 Act, (herein after referred as 'The Act') is directed against the order dated 26th March 1996 passed by District Judge, Sagar, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19/92, which arose out of order dated 1.10.92 passed by Rent Controlling Authority in his case No. 3-A/90/1. The Rent Controlling Authority had fixed standard rent of the shop rented by the predecessors of the present appellant from Jama Maszid Committee, Sagar. On 1st Feb. 1988 there was written agreement between the landlord and tenant fixing the rent of the shop at Rs. 180/- per month. The tenant filed petition for fixing of standard rent on 29.6.88 urging that he was an old tenant and the rent was being increased by land-lord from time to time. The last rent was Rs. 40/-per month, It was got illegally enhanced to Rs. 180/- per month by written agreement which was result of his misrepresentation.

2. The rent controlling authority initially fixed the standard rent and then in appeal there was a remand of the case back to the Rent Controlling Authority as the landlord had asked for fresh opportunity to lead evidence regarding reconstruction. The opportunity was granted by the 1st Appellate Court. Since no evidence was led about reconstruction and the only evidence was regarding some repairs, the Rent Controlling Authority fixed the standard rent at Rs. 54/per month by allowing an enhancement of Rs. 14/- over the earlier rent of Rs. 40/-. The enhancement was at the rate of35%. The landlord approached District Court again in appeal and the District Judge passed the impugned order dated 26.3.96 holding that the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act did not apply to the waif properties as by notification dated 7.9.1989 such properties were exempted from provisions of the Act. Thus it was urged that on the date when the Rent Controlling Authority passed an order, the premises was exempt from rent control. The District Judge has held that merely because the petition was filed at the time when M.P. Accommodation Control Act was in force did not mean that the provisions continued to be applicable till the date of decision or that the standard rent could be fixed. So the appeal was accepted and the petition for standard rent was dismissed. It was ordered that the tenant has to pay the agreed rent and this would be the standard rent.

3. Counsel for appellant before this Court could not find fault with the fact that the M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been made inapplicable with effect from 7.9.) 989 to all the accommodations owned by wakf, registered under the wakf Act 1954. It is not in dispute that the present shop in dispute is owned by such a wakf So with effect from 7.9.89 this premises was exempted from applicability of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

4. The question is what is the effect of such exemption. Can standard rent be fixed for the period from the date of petition till 6.9.89. The learned counsel for appellant has urged that proper and just construction would be to fix the standard rent for the period for which the Act was applicable.

5. The learned 1st, Appellate Court has relied on certain observations of Apex Court in the case of 1994 (1) MPWN 231, where in it was observed that after issuance of exemption notification u/s 3 (2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961, the party cannot take advantage of any of the provisions of the Act. Section 3 (2) of this Act as is under :-

"The Government may, by notification, exempt from all or any of the provision 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 uti1ised for that institution or nursing home or maternity home."

6. In order to understand effect of applicability of the exemption notification, it will be proper to see certain definitions and other relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2 (h) defines 'standard rent' in re