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 Chimamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal v. State of M.P., 1994 MPLJ 597 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)