The exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 applies to the premises itself and is not dependent on the relationship of landlord and tenant. Additionally, the plaintiff is required to prove a ground for eviction under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT

Pranay Verma, J. - This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16-11-2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.14/2015 by the First Additional District Judge, Khargone (West Nimar) reversing the judgment and decree dated 24-01-2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 by the Second Civil Judge, Class-I, District Khargone and dismissing his claim for eviction of the defendants from the suit shop situated at Tilak road, Khargone.

2. As per the plaintiff he is the owner of the suit shop having obtained the same from Nagar Palika, Khargone on lease on 24.05.2008 for a period of thirty years. Earlier the same had been taken on lease by his grandfather late Kanhaiyalal Onkarlal from Nagar Palika Khargone. By a will dated 09.09.1986 Kanhaiyalal had bequeathed the suit shop in his favour and upon his death he became the sole owner thereof. On the basis of the will Nagar Palika, Khargone executed fresh lease in his favour. The father of defendants late Shantilal had taken the suit shop from Kanhaiyalal on rent at Rs. 50/- per month in the year 1975. Upon death of his grandfather plaintiff had communicated the fact of him having acquired the suit shop under a will from him to father of defendants after which he started paying rent to him and upon his death in 2005 the defendants became his tenants in the suit shop at Rs. 60/- per month. The defendants have not being paying rent to plaintiff for past five years despite repeated demands hence by a notice dated 16-04-2013 the plaintiff terminated their tenancy. The defendants sent a reply dated 11. 06.2013 and tendered the arrears of rent for past five years amounting to Rs. 3600/- but did not vacate the suit shop. On such contentions the plaintiff instituted the claim for eviction of the defendants from the suit shop, for damages @ Rs 60/- per month till the date of decree and @ 1000/- per month till date of delivery of possession.

3. The defendants contested the plaintiff's claim by filing their written statement submitting inter-alia that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit shop, that the same was not given on lease to plaintiff's grandfather by the Nagar Palika, that no will was executed by him in favour of plaintiff, that no lease was executed in favour of plaintiff by the Nagar Palika on 24. 05.2008, that plaintiff never intimated them regarding the alleged will executed by Kanhaiyalal in his favour and no such will was executed by him, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and plaintiff, that no rent was ever paid by their father to plaintiff, that there are other heirs also of late Kanhaiyalal to whom rent was tried to be paid but they did not accept the same, that the notice served by plaintiff was incorrect which was suitably replied to by them and that the suit has been filed by plaintiff for selling the suit shop.

4. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's claim finding that the suit shop is owned by Nagar Palika Parishad, Khargone hence the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961') would not be applicable to it, that defendants have admitted late Kanhaiyalal to be the landlord and their father to be a tenant in the suit shop, that the will dated 09.09.1986 set up by plaintiff has been proved by him, that defendants have admitted that after death of Kanhaiyalal their father and after his death they tried to sent the rent to his heirs, that in reply to plaintiff's notice dated 16.04.2013 the defendants tendered the arrears of rent which shows that they have admitted themselves to be tenants in the suit shop and plaintiff to be the owner thereof, that plaintiff has also proved the lease deed dated 24.05.2008 executed in his favour by the Nagar Palika and that tenancy of defendants has been validly terminated by plaintiff.

5. The aforesaid judgment and decree has been reversed by the lower appellate Court upon holding that the e