1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.09 passed by Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in Civil Appeal No. 1/07, whereby the judgment dated 15.12.06 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Shuja1pur in Civil Suit No. 102-A/05 whereby the decree of eviction was passed against the appellants, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that the respondents/trust filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on 27.8.04 alleging that the respondent Shri Achalgachchh Kachchhi Visa Oswal Jain Shwetambar, Dharmik Parmarthik Nyas Trust is a religious and charitable trust, which is registered under the provisions of Public Trust Act by the Registrar, Public Trust, Shujalpur vide order dated 10.2.92. It was alleged that respondents trust is having a property situated at Shastri Marg, Shujalpur. It was alleged that appellants are tenant in the shop Nos. 1,2 & 4 and are paying rent @ Rs. 50-50 for shop Nos. 1 & 2 and Rs. 26/- for shop No.4, totalling Rs. 126/- per month. It was alleged that appellant No.1 and Chandarmal were doing the business in partnership in the name and style of M/s. Gendmal Shrimal Jain. It was alleged that Chandarmal has died. It was alleged that appellant No.1 and deceased Chandarmal were paying rent @ Rs. 126/- per month. It was alleged that appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are legal representatives of deceased Chandarmal. Further case of the respondent/trust was that the respondent/trust requires the suit accommodation bona fidely for carrying on the trust activities. It was alleged that in the adjoining premises which is shown in Schedule A respondent/trust is running a Charitable Hospital which is known as Mahaveer Chikitsalaya. It was alleged that respondent/trust requires the suit accommodation for further extending the activities of the hospital and other religious and Charitable activities. It was alleged that vide resolution dated 27.10.03 respondent/trust has resolved to take appropriate steps against the appellants for eviction. It was alleged that vide notice dated 5.7.04 tenancy of the appellants were terminated w.e.f. 31.7.04. Notice was duly served. It was alleged that the income of the trust from the land is being spent for the Charitable activities of the trust. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed against the appellants.

3. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement wherein tenancy was not disputed. It was denied that the respondent/trust requires the suit accommodation bona fidely for carrying on the trust activities. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit, which was maintained in appeal, hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submit that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that while passing the decree against the appellants holding that the respondent/trust is exempted from the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, (which shall be referred hereinafter as an "Act") learned Courts below committed error as the provisions of Section 3 of the Act has not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in shifting the burden on appellants to prove that the burden was on the appellants to prove that whole income of the trust was not utilised by the trust for their activities: It is submitted that the burden to prove the fact was on the respondents. It is submitted that since the respondents failed to prove that the income of the respondent/trust is being used for canying on the Charitable and religious activities of the trust, therefore, no exemption could have been given to the respondents and the suit ought to have been dismissed. Learned counsel submits that the decision in the matter of Kewalclwnd v. Aachalgachha Kachhi E