Holding

The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of any challenge to the exemption notification and without pleading that the rental income is not used for the trust, the trust is entitled to the benefit of the notification and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The Balaji Mandir Trust, a religious institution registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, filed an eviction suit against tenants Ramgopal and others, relying on a notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 that exempted trust properties from the Act. The tenants did not challenge the validity of the exemption or allege that the rental income was not used for the trust’s purposes. The trial court decreed eviction, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the decree, applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Betibai v. Nathooram. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the exemption notification could be invoked without a specific pleading that the entire rental income serves the trust and whether the notification was valid. Finding no challenge to the notification’s validity and no pleading to the contrary, the Court affirmed the High Court’s view that the trust was entitled to the exemption and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The exemption notification under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is applicable to the trust’s property.
Whether the entire rental income from the premises is utilized for the trust’s religious/charitable purpose, a prerequisite for the exemption.
Whether the exemption notification can be general in nature or must be specific to particular accommodation.
The maintainability of the eviction suit without invoking Section 12(1) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961s. 12(1), s. 3(2)
Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951
Wakf Act, 1954

Subjects

Rent controlEvictionExemption notificationReligious trustPublic trustSection 3(2) MP Accommodation Control ActSection 12 MP Accommodation Control ActMadhya Pradesh

Judgment

A RAMGOPAL AND ANR.
v.
BALAJI MANDIR TRUST AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 19, 2003

B
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]

Rent Control and Eviction:

C Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Section 3(2)-
Exemption from applicability of the Act by a Notification-Applicability of the
exemption to a Trust-Suit by Trust for eviction of tenants-However, validity
of exemption Notification or the maintainability of suit not challenged-Trust
held, entitled to benefit of the Notification by Courts below-On appeal,
judgments of Courts below upheld
D
Respondent-landlords, a religious trust, filed a suit against appellant-
tenants for eviction from tenanted premises on the strength of a
Notification issued under Section 3(2) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodatio~
Control Act, 1961 whereby a religious trust was exempted from the •
E applicability of the Act. Appellant-te~ants did not raise any plea regarding
applicability of the exemption ; or that rental income was not utilised for
the purpose of the Trust; nor the validity of the Notification was
challenged. Suit was decreed by trial Court. In appeal, High Court upheld
order of trial Court holding that respondent-trust was entitled to benefit
of exemption Notification in the light of decision in Betibai 's case.
F
In appeal tq, this Court appellants contended that it was not
established that whole of the rental income' was for the purpose of the trust;
that Betibai 's case was not applicable to present case as Notification issued
by the State of Tamil Nadu considered in Kandaswamy's case was not
identical to the instant case. Matter was sought to be referred to larger
G Bench for consideration as there was a conflict between Betibai 's case and
Kanhaiyalal's case on the question whether the exemption notificati,on can
be general or it shonld be regarding a particular accommodation.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

H 212
RAMGOPAL v. BALAJI MANDIR TRUST [PATIL, J.] 213

HELD: 1. It cannot be said that the provision for issuing Exemption A
Notification in the case of Tamil Nadu is different inasmuch as the whole
of the income derived from which is utilized for that institution is not to
be found unlike the provision contained in Section 3(2) of Madhya Pradesh
Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Moreover, the appellants have not
challenged the validity of the notification and they have also failed to plead B
that whole of the rental income derived from the accommodation in
question is not utilized for the purpose of the trust. [218-G, H; 219-A)

Betibai and Ors. v. Nathooram and Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 368, relied on.

S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (1985) I SCC
290, referred to. c
2. Having not raised any objection as to the maintainability of the
suit on the ground that the exemption Notification did not cover the case
and that too in the absence of either admitted or established facts
supporting that ground, it is not possible for the Court to take a different
D
view. There is no good or valid reason to differ from the view taken by
the High Court in the impugned judgment. Having regard to all the aspects
in the present case, the matter need not be referred to larger Bench for
• consideration. (219-B; 218-D-E)

Boolchand v. Atal Ram Sindhi Dharmshala Trust, (1998) 1 MPWN 113; E
State ofMP. v. Kanhaiyalal, (1970) MPLJ 973; Chintamani Chandra Mohan
,._,. Agarwal v. State of MP., (1994) MPLJ 597 and State of MP. and Anr. v.
Smt. Chintamani Agrawal and Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 371, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1417 of2003.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in C.F.A. No. 51 of 2001.

U.N. Bhachawat, Alok Bhachawat, Sushil Kumar Jain and Ms. Pratibha
Jain for the Appellants.
G
G.L. Sanghi, B.S. Banthia, T.S. Chaudhary and Dhirendra Trivedi, for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. Leave granted. H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for the eviction from
the house and shop given to them on rent. The plaintiff no. I is a religious
institution registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act. The
defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The trial court decreed the
suit. The defendants filed an appeal before· the High Court challenging the
decree passed by the trial court. The Division Bench of the High Court
B dismissed the appeal finding no merit in it. Hence, this appeal.

Before the High Court, findings of fact were not disputed. The only
ground urged was that plaintiff no. I has failed to plead and prove that it is
a religious/charitable trust and it was not entitled to get the benefit of exemption
C notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation
Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'); consequently, it was necessary for the
plaintiff no.I to have made out a ground under Section 12(1) of the Act for
getting a decree in view of the decision in the case of Boolchand v. Atal Ram
Sindhi Dharamshala Trust, (1998) 1MPWN113. The High Court relying on
the decision o(this Court in Betibai and Ors. v-. Nathooram and Ors., [1999]
D 6 sec 368 held that the plaintiffs were entitled for a decree as passed by the
trial court.

Shri U.N. Bachawat, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants urged
that the High Court committed an error in taking a view that the plaintiffs
were entitled for benefit of exemption notification issued under Section 3(2)
E of the Act in the light of the decision in the case of Betibai aforementioned.
He contended that it was not established that whole of the rental income from
the suit accommodation was utilized for the purpose of the trust, neither there · ..
was relevant material nor consideration by the Government before issuing
exemption notification and that such a notification could not be general in
p nature. He sought to distinguish the case of Betibai (supra) on the ground that
the exemption notification considered in the case of S. Kandaswamy Chettiar
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. [1985] l SCC 290 was not identical to the
one, which is applicable to the present case. He urged that there is a conflict
between Betibai's case (supra) and State of MP. v. Kanhaiyalal, (1970)
MPLJ 973 case on the question whether the exemption notification can be
G general or it should be regarding a particular accommodation. As such, the
controversy may require consideration by larger bench of this Court.

On the other hand, Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents submitted that the High Court, having considered all aspects and
H the submissions made before it, has rightly followed the case of this Court
~\

RAMGOPAL v. BALAJI MANDIR TRUST [PATIL, J.] 215
in Betibai case (supra) and no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. A
In order to appreciate the respective contentions advanced on behalf of
the parties it may be useful to look to Section 3(2) of the Act and the
Exemption Notification issued thereunder, which read:-

"3(2) The Government (Central Govt.) may, by notification, exempt B
from all or any of the provisions of this Act any accommodation
which is owned by any educational, religious or charitable institution
or by any nursing or maternity home, the whole of the income derived
from which is utilized for that institution or nursing home or maternity
home."
c
"NOTIFICATION NO. F-24·(4)-83-XXXII-I Dated 7th September,
1989, publishea in M.P. Rajpatra of the same date on p. 2144.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3
of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (No. XLI
of 1961), the State Government hereby exempts all the accommodation D
owned by-
(i) the Wakf, registered under the Wakf Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954),
or

(ii) the public trust registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts
Act, 1951 (No. XXX of 1951) for an educational, religious or E
charitable purpose.

from all the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation
Control Act, 1~6J. (No. XLI of 1961)".

As already noticed above, the appellants did not challenge the finding · F
of facts before the High Court except the legal question. In para 2 of the
plaint plaintiff averred that it is a religious institution and is registered under
the M.P. Public Trust Act. The defendants, while admitting this averment in
the written statement only stated that the suit has not been filed by all the
trustees, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The trial court recorded a G
finding that the suit was maintainable. In the written statement the defendants
did not raise any plea that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the benefit of the
Exemption Notification, extracted above; it was also not pleaded that the
rental income from the premises was not utilized for the purpose of the
plaintiff trust; so also they did not challenge the validity of the said notification
either before the trial court or before the High Court. In this view the High H
r
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A Court rejected the submission made on behalf of the appellants that in the
absence of any pleading and the proof tendered by the plaintiff no benefit of
the Exemption Notification in filing the suit and getting the eviction decree
could be granted to the plaintiff. In para 11 of the impugned judgment the
High Court has held thus:-

B "11. In our opinion, therefore, the trial court was perfectly justified
in proceeding on the basis that the plaintiff is a religious trust and is
entitled to file a suit on the strength of the exemption notification and
also claim a decree for eviction of the defendant without taking
recourse to Section 12 of the Act. The decision relied on by the
learned counsel for the respondent reported in 1998(1) MPWN 113
c is distinguishable on facts. In that case parties joined issue on these
facts and hence it had become necessary for the plaintiff to prove the
facts. As held supra, such is not the case here."

The case relied on by the appellants in Boolchand case supra is also
D distinguished, as is evident from the paragrap_h extracted above. The learned
counsel for the appellants in support of his submissions also relied on the
decisions in (I) State of MP. v. Kanhaiyalal, (1970) MPLJ 973, (2)
Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal v. State ofMP., (1994) MPLJ 597 and
order dated 19.10.1995 passed in State of MP. and Anr. v. Smt. Chintamani
Agrawal and Ors., Civil Appeal No.-of 1995 arising out of SLP (C) No.
E 4360 of 1994. In our view tl)ese decisions do not help the appellants having
regard to a direct decision of this Court in Betibai and Ors. v. Nathooram
and Ors., [1999] 6 SCC 368. Distinguishing the aforesaid decisions relied on
by the learned counsel for the appellants in Betibai' s case supra in paras 5
to 7 of the said judgment the position is made clear thus:-
F "5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the
notification dated 7.9.1989 has already been held to be bad by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal
v. State of MP., (1994) MPLJ 597. He also contended that this Court
in Mangilal v. Shri Chuturbhuja Mandir, [1998] 5 SCC 597 has also
G 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 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.
H
RAMGOPAL v. BALAJI MANDIR TRUST [PATIL, J.] 217
:::..-
6. The decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High. Court in A
Chitamani case was challenged in an appeal filed in this Court by the
State of Madhya Pradesh which was disposed of by a Bench of which
one of us, Saghir Ahmad, was a member and the notification dated
9.9.1989, by which the properties belonging to public charitable trusts
and the Wakf were exempted, was upheld. It was in that judgment
held, inter a/ia as under:- B
,.
"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
notification dated September 7, 1989 granting exemption to the c
Board under the above mentioned provision of the Act was
challenged 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
to issue the impugned notification. D
Learned counsel for the State of M.P. has invited our attention
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.,
suggesting, for the reasons given in the said letter, to grant
exemption of the provisions of the Act to the properties owned E
by the Wakf. Thereafter, the State of M.P. made enquiries from
various other 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 issue in the impugned
notification. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of F
the High Court. We seek support from the judgment of .this
Court in S. Kadaswamy Chettiar v. State of T.N."

7. The decision of this Court in Mangilal case upon which reliance
has been placed is distinguishable as the only question pleaded in that
case was that since the notification dated 7.9.1989 has been held to G
be bad by the High Court in respect ofWakfproperties 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 9.9.1989 was a composite notification which applied not only
to the wakf properties but also to other charitable trust properties, and H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) 2 S.C.R.

A 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
properties, 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, that against the decision of the Madhya Pradesh
B High Court in Chintamani case Civil Appeal No. 9909of1995 [arising
from SLP (Civil) No. 4360 of 1994], was filed in this Court, which
was decided on 19.10.1995 and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court was reserved with a categorical finding that the notification
issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government exempting the Wakf and
c trust properties from the operation of the Act was valid."

In the case of Kanhaiyalal (supra) the Exemption Notification issued
under Section 3(2) of the Act was of 22.5.1963, with which we are not
concerned. The notification governing the present case is dated 7.9.1989.
Even otherwise that case was rightly distinguished on facts. We respectfully
D agree with the decision in Betibai case (supra), since we do not have any
good reason to differ. Having regard to all aspects in the present case we are
unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants to
refer the matter to a larger Bench for consideration. The learned counsel tried
to make a distinction on the basis of language used in the Exemption
E Notification, which came lip for consideration in S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v.
State o/Tamil Nadu and Anr., [1985] I SCC 290, to which reference is made
in para 8 of the judgment in Betibai case, which reads :-

"8. It may be mentionedI 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
F
the State Government of Tamil Nadu exempting wakf and trust
properties, was upheld by this Court in S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v.
State of T.N. Even this decision was not brought to the notice of the
learned Judges who disposed of Mangilal case."

G The learned senior counsel for the appellants tried to draw a distinction
on the ground that the provisions for issuing Exemption Notification in the
case of Tamil Nadu is different inasmuch as the whole of the income derived
from which is utilized for that institution is not to be found unlike the provision
contained in Section 3(2) of the Act. This Court in Betibai case, as already
noticed above, has rejected the contention. That apart, when the appellants
H have not challenged the validity of the notification and when they have failed
RAMGOPAL v. BALAJI MANDIR TRUST [PATIL, J.] 219
to plead that whole of the rental income derived from the accommodations A
in question is not utilized for the purpose of the trust, we do not find any
merit in this submission of the learned counsel also.

Having not raised any objection as to the maintainability of the suit on
the ground that the Exemption Notification did not cover the case and that
too in the absence of either admitted or established facts supporting that B
· ground, it is not possible for us to take a different view. We do not find any
good or valid reason to differ from the. view taken by the High Court in the
impugned judgment. The appeal has no merits. Consequently the same is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

-- K.K.T. Appeal dismissed. C

...

t
•