1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17/01/2008 passed by III additional District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Appeal No.44-A/07 whereby the judgment dated 29/07/06 passed by III Civil Judge, Class-I, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 97-A/2000 whereby the suit filed by respondent was decreed, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that on 21.12.98 respondent filed a suit against the appellant alleging that the respondent is a public Trust registered under the provisions of M.P. Public Trusts Act. It was alleged that respondent is owner of suit accommodation situated at Nayapura Road, Mandsaur, in which appellant is tenant @ Rs.30/- per month and is carrying on Hotel. It was alleged that respondent is irregulary in payment of rent and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.95. It was alleged that inspite of notice dated 1.1.98 appellant has paid only a sum of Rs. 840/-, but is still in arrears. It was alleged that respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the activities of respondent Trust, for which respondent is having no other alternative accommodation. It was further alleged that vide resolution dated 18.6.98 President of the trust was authorised to file a suit and it was prayed that decree of eviction be passed. Vide amendment dated 24.9.04 it was alleged that vide notice dated 2.8.98 tenancy of the appellant was terminated w.e.f. 31.7.98.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement, wherein it was not disputed that the appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation. It was alleged that no rent is due against the appellant. It was alleged that the moment power of attorney of the respondent comes to collect the rent, it is being paid by the appellant. It was denied that respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the trust activities. It was alleged that notice received by the appellant was duly replied. It was denied that tenancy of the appellant was validly terminated. In special plea it was alleged that appellant is tenant right from 1960. Initially the rent was Rs. 7/- per month. It was alleged that on 8.5.1961 one more room was given to the appellant and rent was enhanced by Rs. 5/-. It was further alleged that the rent was enhanced from 1967 to Rs. 17/- and in the year 1975 it was enhanced to Rs. 30/-. It was alleged that respondent is not entitled for a decree of eviction. It was also alleged that the object of the respondent is not in public interest. On the contrary respondent intends to earn the money. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit, against which an appeal was filed, which was dismissed, hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed grave error in passing the decree against the appellant. It is submitted that since the respondent Trust is not using the income of the respondent Trust for charitable purposes and for the welfare of the public at large, therefore, respondent is not entitled for a decree of eviction. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below proceeded the case assuming that the respondent Trust is exempted from the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It is submitted that since the income of the respondent Trust is not being used for carrying on the charitable activities, therefore, learned Courts below committed error in exempting the respondent Trust from the provisions of M.P. Public Trusts Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Boolchand vs. Atalram Sindhi Dharmashala Trust, 1998 (1) MPWN 113 = 1997 MPACJ 255 wherein after enforcement of the notification issued by State Government, this Court held that it is well established that no subordinate legisl