Holding

The notification is valid; properties of religious and charitable trusts are exempt from the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and eviction suits may be filed directly under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Summary

Babulal, a tenant of a shop owned by the Phool Maliyan Samaj Mandir Trust, had his tenancy terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but refused to vacate. The trustees filed an eviction suit, contending that the property was exempt from the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 under a 1989 notification issued under Section 3(2) of that Act. The trial court and the High Court upheld the exemption and decreed the eviction suit. The appellants argued that the notification was invalid and that, because of the exemption, the suit should have been filed under Section 12 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the 1989 notification was valid, that properties of religious and charitable trusts are exempt from the Act, and that an eviction suit may be filed directly under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act without invoking Section 12. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the 1989 notification exempting Wakf and charitable trust properties from the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is valid.
Whether properties belonging to religious and charitable trusts are exempt from the operation of the Act under Section 3(2).
Whether an eviction suit against a tenant of such exempt property must be filed under Section 12 of the Act or can be filed directly under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961s. 12, s. 3(2)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 106

Subjects

evictionrent controlaccommodation control actreligious trustcharitable trustexemptionTransfer of Property ActSection 106Section 12notification validity

Judgment

'\

A BETIBAI AND ORS. I
v.
NATHOORAM AND ORS.

MARCH 12, 1999

B [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.]
'-·
Rent Control and Eviction :

M.P.-Accommodation Control Act, 1961: Sections 3(2) and 12.

c Rent Act-Religious and Charitable Trusts-Exempted from operation
of-Filing of eviction suit under S. 12--Necessity of-Held : It is not incum-
bent upon such trusts to file eviction suit under S. 12--Eviction suit can be
filed straightaway after terminating the tenancy under S. 106 of T.P.
Act-Hence, suit 1ightly decreed-Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 106.
D The appellant was a tenant of ashop belonging to a temple managed
by the respondent-landlord. The appdlant's tenancy was terminated by a
notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but the
appellant tenant did not vacate the suit premises. The respondent, there-
fore, filed a civil suit against ihe appellant for his eviction. It was pleaded
E that since the property in question belonged to a religious and charitable
trust it was exempted from the operation of the M.P. Accommodation Act,
1961 vi de notification issued under Section 3 (2) of the Act. The trial court
decreed the suit and the appeals were dismissed. Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the suit was liable
F to be dismissed as it was not based on any of the grounds specified in
Section 12 of the Act.

· Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The properties belonging to religious and charitable
G trusts were exempted from the operation of the M.P. Accommodation (
Control Act, 1961 and consequently it was not incumbent upon the respon·
dent-landlord to .have filed the suit for eviction of tenant on the grounds
set out under Section 12 of the Act and that they could file a suit for ....
evidence straightaway after terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of
H the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [1030-B]
1028
BETIBAlv. NATHOORAM [S.SAGHIRAHMAD,J.) 1029

S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1985] 1 SCC 290, A
i"elied on.

Chil!tamani Mahender Agrawal v. State of M.P., (1994) MPW 597,
held reversed in State of M.P. v. Chintamani, CA No. 4360 of (1995) SC
decided on 19.10.1995. Mangilal v. Shri Omturbhuja Mandir, (1998] 5 SCC
597, held inapplicable. B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2425 of
1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.98 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in S.A. No. 901 of 1998.
c
S.M. Rai, B.M. Sharma and T.N. Singh for the Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave grnted.

Babula! was the tenant of a shop belonging to a temple managed by
Phool Maliyan Samaj Mandir Trust, Bhopal (the 'Trust', for short), whose
tenancy was determined by notice dated 14.9.1991 under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act. In spite of the tenancy having been determined, E
Babula! did not vacate the premises. Consequently, the respondents; who
were the Trustees of the Trust, instituted a civil suit in the court of CiVil.
Judge, Bhopal, against Babulal for his eviction. It was pleaded that since
the property in question belonged to the religious and charitable Trust, it
was exempted from the operation of the M.P. Accommodation Control F
Act, 1961, (the 'Act', for short) as provided by Section 3(2) thereof.

. The suit was contested by Babula!, who filed a written statement
denying the plaint all.:gations and pleaded that the suit was liable to be
dismissed as it was not based on any of the grounds specified in Section · G
12 of the Act.

The suit was decreed on 8.12.1997, against which an appeal was filed,
but before it could be disposed of by the Addi. District Judge, Bhopal, the
original tenant died and was substituted by the present appellants as his
heirs and legal representatives. The appeal was ultimately dismissed on H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A 28th September, 1998. The second appeal filed in the High Court was .••

dismissed· on 17.12.1998. The trial court as also the lower appellate court
and the High Court held that on account of Notification issued on 7.9.1989,
the properties belonging to religious and charitable trusts were exempted
from the operation of the Act and consequently it was not incumbent upon
B the respondent-landlords to have filed the suit for eviction of tenant on the
grounds set out under Section 12 of the Act and that they could file the
suit .for eviction straightaway after terminating the tenant.)' under Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Notifica-
C tion dated 7th September, 1989 has already been held to J:ie bad by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Chintamani Mahender Aga1wal v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (1994) MPU 597. He also contended that this Court in
Mangilal v. Shri Chuturbhuja Mandirk, (1998) 5 SCC 597 has also held the
Notification to be bad. It is, in these circumstances, contended that the suit
of the respondents was liable to be dismissed and the appellants cannot be
D evicted from the premises in question, except by invoking any of the
grounds set out in Section 12 of the Act. The pleas raised by the counsel
for the appellants, in our opinion, have no substance.

The decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
E Chintamani's case (supra) was challenged in an appeal filed in this Court
by the State of Madhya Prdesh which was disposed of by a Bench of which
one of us (Saghir Ahmad, J.) was a member and the Notification dated 9th
September, 1989, by which the properties belonging to public charitable
trusts and Wakf were exempted, was upheld. It was, in that Judgment held,
inter alia, as under:-
F
·"The State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the powers under
sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the M.P. Accommodation Control
Act, 1961 (the Act), exempted all buildings owned by the Madhya
Pradesh Wakf Board (Board) from the operation of the Act. The
G Notification dated September 7, 1989 granting exemption to the
Board under the above-mentioned provision of the Act was chal-
lenged before the High Court. The High Court quashed the
Notification on the short ground that there was no material before
the State Government to reach the satisfaction that it was necessary
H to issue the impugned Notification.
BETIBAiv. NATHOORAM [S.SAGHIRAHMAD,J.] 1031

Learned counsel for the State of M.P. has invited our attention A
to the letter dated March 26, 1976, by the then Prime Minister of
India addressed to the Chief Minister of the State of M.P., sug-
gesting, for the reasons given in the said letter, to grant exemption
of the provisions of the Act to the properties owned by the W akf.
Thereafter, the State of M.P. made enquiries from various other B
States in this respect. On receipt of the replies, the matter was
considered and thereafter, the exemption Notification was issued.
We are satisfied that there was sufficient material before the State
Government for issuing the impugned Notification. We, therefore,
set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. We seek C
support from the judgment of this Court in S. Kandaswamy Chettiar
v. State of Tamil Nadu'and Anr., (1985] 1 SCC 290."

The decision of this Court in Mangi,/al's case (supra), upon which
reliance has been placed is distinguishable as the only question pleaded in D
that case was that since the Notification dated 7th September, 1989 has
been held to be bad by the High Court in respect of Wakf properties only,
the trust properties would continue to be exempted from the operation of
the Act. This plea was not accepted and it was held that the Notification
dated 9th September, 1989 was a composite Notification which applied not
only to the W akf properties but also to other charitable trust properties, E
and since this Notification has been held to be bad in respect of the Wakf
properties, it would be bad for all other properties, including trust proper-
ties, which were sought to be exempted from the operation of the Act. The
validity of the Notification was not questioned in that decision. Moreover,
--• it was not brought to the notice of Their Lordships, who decided that case, F
that against the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Chintamani's case (supra), Civil Appeal No. 9909 of 1995 (arising from
S.L.P. (Civil) NO. 4360 of (1994) was filed in this Court, which was decided
on October 19, 1995 and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
was reversed with a categorical finding that the Notification issued by the
Madhya Pradesh Govt. exempting the Wakf and Trusts properties from the G
operation of the Act was valid.

It may be mentioned that similar Notifications issued in other States,
by which Wakf and Trust properties were exempted, have already been
upheld by this Court. As for example, the Notification issued by the State H
.,

1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A Govt. of Tamil Nadu exempting Wakf and Trust properties, was upheld by
this Court in S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., [1985]
1 SCC 290. Even this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned
Judges who disposed of Mangilal's case.

In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed but
B without any order as to costs.
v.s.s. - Appeal dismissed.