The central legal point established in the judgment is the exemption of trust property under section 3(2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and the requirement that the income derived by the trust was utilized for its purposes.

K. K. Lahoti, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-4-2009 by the Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in Civil Appeal No. 39-A/2007, by which the judgment and decree dated 28-9-2008 in Civil Suit No. 100-A/2005 by the Civil Judge Class-I, Shujalpur, was affirmed.

2. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below have been assailed by the appellant on following grounds:-

(a) That the Appellate Court has not dealt with all the issues decided by the trial Court, which was the mandatory duty on the part of Appellate Court as held by the Apex Court in Madhukar and others vs. Sangram and others, AIR 2001 SC 2171.

(b) That though the State Government granted exemption under section 3 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), but the plaintiff has failed to prove that the whole of income derived by it was utilised for that institution, in absence of which decree could not have been passed. Reliance is placed to the Apex Court judgment in Ramgopal and another vs. Balaji Mandir Trust and others, (2003) 5 SCC 17.

(c) That the plaintiff failed to prove how the property was acquired by it in which the defendant was tenant. He referred the trust deed in support of his contention and submitted that in absence of vesting of property to the trust the plaintiff was not entitled for a decree.

It was submitted that this appeal be admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law.

3. (a) To appreciate the aforesaid contention, factual position in the case may be stated. The respondents filed a suit for eviction on the ground that in the execution proceedings of District Judge, Shujalpur in Case No. 39/Samvat 1979, the suit property was purchased by Shwetambar Jain Beesa Oswal Samaj in accordance with law. The defendant is a tenant in the said premises @ Rs. 100/-per month and is carrying on business of oil-cake etc. The tenancy of defendant is in accordance with English calendar month. The plaintiff is a registered trust under the M. P. Public Trust Act. It was registered by the Registrar, Public Trust, Shujalpur on 10-2-1992. Before the registration of trust the said institution was working as Shri Achal Gach Kachi Beesa Oswal Jain Shwetambar Dharmik Avam Parmarthak Nyas, Shujalpur.

That in the house owned by the trust, defendant is the tenant of plaintiff. The defendant had paid rent upto 31-3-2004 of which receipt No. 71 dated 31-3-2004 was issued to the defendant. The defendant has also attorned plaintiff as landlord. Rent is due since 1-4-2004. That the defendant is not paying rent regularly. The suit accommodation is required by the trust for expansion of its trust activities namely Mahaveer Chikitsalaya, Religious School, and for other activities of the trust. By resolution dated 27-10-2003, the plaintiff trust in the general meeting resolved to get the suit accommodation vacated. Notice was served on the defendant determining his tenancy.

That the suit accommodation is the property of the trust and is exempted from the provisions of the Act by the State Government under section 3 of the Act.

(b)(i) The defendant denied the allegations of the plaintiff. He denied the registration of the trust and its ownership of the accommodation. He pleaded that plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the suit accommodation. The defendant is the tenant of a different house, map is also not correct. The plaintiff has not disclosed the details of acquisition of the property and in absence of specific averments in the plaint defendant cannot file the reply.

(ii) That apart from the plaintiff there are other owners of the property. The defendant entered into a contract of tenancy with one Megjibhai @ Rs. 31/- per month. Megjibhai had not disclosed in respect of his transfer of interest to plaintiff Trust. Till 31-3-2004 the rent was paid to Vallabjibhai, the son of Megjibhai and he had issued the receipt. The said Vallabjibhai never disclosed that he was