A notification issued by the State Government under Section 3(2) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961, exempting the applicability of the provisions to the accommodations owned by the public trust registered under MPPT Act, is valid and applicable to public trusts registered under the MPPT Act.

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. This second appeal has come up for hearing before us on a reference being made by C. K. Prasad, J. who was of the opinion that the substantial question of law required to be determined is a question of importance which reads thus:

"Whether the respondents were entitled to claim exemption from the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the basis of notification, issued on 7-9-1989, by the State Government, exempting the appellant from operation of the section subject to the conditions mentioned therein?"

2. Facts which are essential for determination of the question are thus : The respondent/plaintiff is a religious and charitable trust registered under M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short 'the MPPT Act') which owns a Dharamshala, many houses and other properties. The houses are let out to the various tenants of the trust. The rental income derived from the houses and other buildings is exclusively used and applied for religious and charitable purposes and also for charitable institutions. The appellant is a tenant of a building on the monthly rent of Rs. 75/-, situated at Gujarati Bazar, Sagar in front of rice mill Batbatwali Atari No. 4. The appellant did not pay the rent since April 1988 and kept the premises closed. Therefore, the plaintiff served a notice Ex. P. 2 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy and for payment of arrears of rent. The appellant sent the reply Ex. P. 3 to the notice. After determination of tenancy and length of notice the plaintiff instituted a suit on 11-6-1990 for eviction and for realisation of arrears of rent due and mesne profits. The appellant after the service of writ of summons, within one month deposited the arrears of rent and thereafter continued to deposit month by month by 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent during the pendency of the suit. The appellant contested the suit on various grounds. The trial Court held that the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (No. XLI of 1961) (for short 'the Act') do not apply to the accommodation of the charitable and religious trust in view of the notification No. F-24-(4)-83-XXXII-I, dated the 7th September, 1989 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, hence passed the decree of ejectment and for mesne profits.

3. The appellant aggrieved of the said judgment and decree preferred CA No. 26-A of 1994 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated the 31st August 1996 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Sagar. Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree the appellant preferred this second appeal which was admitted by the learned Single Judge on 13-5-1997 on the substantial question of law referred to above.

4. Shri R. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section 3(2) of the Act does not give to the State Government unfettered and uncanalised power to exempt from the operation of the Act belonging to any religious or charitable institution. The power can be exercised only in relation to accommodation owned by any educational religious charitable institution, or by any nursing or maternity home, the whole of the income derived from which is utilised for that institution or nursing or maternity home. It was submitted that the notification so issued by the State Government exempting the properties of the Wakf registered under the Wakf Act, 1954 or the Public Trusts registered under the MPPT Act does not satisfy conditions mentioned in Section 3(2), for the grant of exemption. A Division Bench of this Court considered the validity of notification granting exemption in relation to the accommodation owned by Wakf in case of Chintamani Chandramohan Agarwal and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1994 MPLJ 597, and quashed the notification holding that there was nothing on record to consider whether basic conditions for granting exem