##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF th ON THE 16 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 2249 of 2026 PARVEEN KUMAR Versus SINDHIYA DEVSTHAN TRUST REGISTERED MUKHYALAY JAY VILAS PALACE GWALIOR M P PRABANDHAK ARPIT JOSHI P Appearance:

Shri Sita Ram Madrosiya - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Jagdish Baheti- learned counsel for the respondent .

ORDER Heard on the question of admission.

2. This second appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant impugning judgment and decree th dated 11.03.2024 passed by VI Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ujjain in RCS-A 81/2021, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. The appellant has also assailed the judgment and decree dated nd

29.06.2026 passed by II District Judge, Ujjain in RCA-66/2024, whereby the first appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were affirmed.

3. The short facts of the case are that the appellant is the tenant of the respondent, which is a registered public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The respondent issued a notice terminating the tenancy of the appellant on 16.10.2019 and demanded the arrears of rent also. Notice was replied by the appellant on 24.10.2019 and the arrears of the rent were tendered by the appellant through cheque along with the reply. Thereafter, the suit for eviction has been filed by the respondent before the trial court.

4. The appellant denied the plaint allegations. The trial Court settled the issues and put the parties to trial and thereafter by the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2024, partly allowed the suit filed by the respondent and passed the decree of eviction against the appellant with decree of means profit of Rs. 875/- per month and costs.

5. The appellant assailed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court before the first appellate court and the first appellate court by the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2026 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. The respondent also filed cross-objections in the appeal and cross-

objections of the respondent were also dismissed by the first appellate court.

6. Shri Sita Ram Madrosiya, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondent failed to prove any ground of eviction and there was no arrears of rent on the date of filing of the suit, therefore, no decree of eviction could be passed by the trial court. He further submits that the respondent was required to prove the grounds of eviction and in the absence of any such pleading, the decree passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

7. Considering the fact that the respondent is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act and the State Government by notification dated 12.07.2019 has exempted the properties situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh owned by the public trusts registered in other states of the Republic of India for the educational, religious or charitable purposes, from all the provisions of the Accommodation Control Act and the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act are not applicable to the subject property. In the absence of the applicability of the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the only requirement for the landlord is to issue a notice terminating the tenancy and serving the same upon the tenant. In the case in hand, the notice was issued on 16.10.2019, which was duly served on 18.10.2019 and thereafter the suit has been filed. Therefore, the trial court has not committed any error in passing the decree of eviction against the present appellant. The first appellate court has also not committed any error in affirming the decree passed by the trial court. There was no requirement for the respondent to prove any of the ground of eviction and even in the absence of any arrears of rent, the decree of eviction could b