A suit for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, must be brought by all the trustees or one trustee empowered by all other trustees in the case of a registered Public Trust, unless the trust is administered under a different enactment.

C.P. Sen, J.

1. This is plaintiffs 2nd IN appeal against the dismissal of this suit for eviction by the Courts below seeking eviction under Section 12(1) (a), (f), (g) and (h) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide need for residential purposes, essential repairs and reconstruction.

2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a religious and charitable institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also under the M. P. Public Trust Act, 1951. The suit block formed part of the building own-ed by the plaintiff in which the defendant is a tenant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant become a tenant on 15-6-71 at the rate of Rs. 40 per month as per rent note (Ex. D-3) and since the rent note was neither registered nor stamped, it was inadmissible in evidence and so the defendant was merely a licensee. The defendant did not pay ANY rent from the inception and on the other hand filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for fixation of fair rent. So on 29-9-1971 his tenancy was terminated and arrears of rent was demanded. Then the suit was filed seeking eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, the suit block was required by the plaintiff for the Reading Room and Science Laboratory of the Girls Middle School already run by the plaintiff in the same building, the building was in dilapidated condition and the plaintiff wanted to make necessary alteration in the building to suit its purpose. The defendant, while resisting the suit, submitted that this father was a tenant since 1954 and thereafter he was continuing as tenant, the rent was Rs. 110/- per month but the plaintiff brought pressure on him by giving threasts of eviction and so he was forced to execute the rent note (Ex.. D-3) mentioning the rent to be Rs. 40/- per month; subsequently the rents of other tenants were also increased but since the defendant refused to pay the enhanced rent, the suit has been brought for his eviction on false grounds, the plaintiff is running a school but they have got other houses and the plaintiff has also got other vacant accommodation in the building itself for opening the Reading Room and Science Laboratory; the building is in a sound and good condition; it is neighter dilapidated nor it requires reconstruction; the plaintiff has not prepared proper plan and estimates for repairs or reconstruction.

3. The Courts below rejected the plaintiff's contention that the defendant was only a licensee, while the trial Court found that the rent note (Ex. D-3) to be inadmissable in evidence as it was compulsorily registrable but the lower appellate Court found that it required no registration as it has been executed only by the defendant and not by the plaintiff also and so it is not a lease-deed; the suit has been found to be incompatent by the Court below on the ground that the plaintiff being a registred Public Trust, the suit has not been brought by all the trustees or one trustee empowered by all other trustees by relyimg on a Division Bench decision of this court in Laxman Prasad v. Shrideo Janki Raman 1973 MPLJ 842) the Rent Controlling Authority fixed the rent at Rs. 10/- per month and in appeal fair rent was fixed at Rs. 11.30 per month, the defendant wanted provisional rent to be fixed under Section 13(2) but the application was rejected as the plaintiff opposed the application comtending that the defendant was only a licensee, after fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controlling Authority the defendant has deposited all rents at the rate fixed so the defendant was entitled to protection against eviction under Section 13(5) of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent; the plaintiff does not bona fixe require the suit premises for the Reading Rook and Science Laboratory for its Girls Middle School because there are two other rooms suitable for this purpose available with the plaintiff besides, the plaintiff has got other houses owned by it in the