Back
Supreme Court rules out-of-state public trusts can claim MP Accommodation Control Act
The has held that public trusts registered outside Madhya Pradesh may still claim under the , when pursuing eviction proceedings. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a order that had rejected the 's under .
A Long-Pending Eviction Battle Revived
The dispute traces back to an eviction petition filed by the appellant trust in , seeking eviction and recovery of from the original respondent, Jamuna Prasad Saraswat. During the proceedings, the respondents-defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the trust was not registered under the . They argued that the trust was therefore not entitled to claim under , which meant the suit was not .
The trial court dismissed that application in . However, the reversed that decision in on , holding that the notification dated barred suits by trusts registered outside the State. Aggrieved, the trust approached the Supreme Court.
The 2018 Notification That Changed the Picture
While the appeal remained pending, the trust filed an application placing on record a subsequent notification dated
. This notification was issued in continuation of the earlier 1989 notification and expressly exempted accommodation situated in Madhya Pradesh owned by public trusts registered in
"other States of the Republic of India for educational, religious or charitable purposes"
from all provisions of the Accommodation Control Act.
The Supreme Court found this point decisive. The earlier notification on which the High Court had relied could no longer bar an filed by an out-of-state public trust, because the 2018 notification had extended the to such trusts. The bench observed:
"In the light of the subsequent notification dated which was in continuation to the earlier notification dated , the finding of the High Court under the that the notification dated would bar the suits being prosecuted by the trust which are registered outside the State of Madhya Pradesh would not hold water."
A Remand With a Protective Condition
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on this short ground alone, without adjudicating the merits of the eviction claim. The matter was to the jurisdictional trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. All other contentions of both parties were kept open.
The Court also imposed a safeguard in favour of the absent respondents. It directed the trial court to issue fresh notice to the defendants before proceeding with the trial, and to continue only after service of notice was properly effected or deemed valid.
What This Means for Eviction Suits by Out-of-State Public Trusts
The judgment clarifies that public trusts registered in one State but owning property in Madhya Pradesh are not automatically disqualified from claiming rent control exemptions. The 2018 notification, being a continuation of the 1989 regime, must be given effect in pending litigation. The practical consequence is that trusts registered outside Madhya Pradesh can now defend their right to pursue eviction suits, with the trial court being required to examine the matter on merits rather than rejecting the at the threshold.
The Supreme Court set aside the , allowed the appeal, and directed no order as to costs. The trial court will now take up the afresh, consistent with this ruling and after ensuring proper notice to the respondents.
