Shri Bhagwatacharya Narayan Dharmarth Trust, Balaji Mandir and Others vs Jai Prakash

N.K. Mody, J.—Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.7.96 passed by IInd Addl. District Judge, Jhabua in Civil Appeal No. 2-A/96, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.2.96 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Alirajpur in Civil Suit No. 36-A/91, whereby suit filed by the Appellants for eviction was dismissed, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed.

The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 21.8.97 on the following substantial question of law:

(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Court below with regard to the need of the Plaintiff/Appellants of the suit accommodation is perverse and contrary to the evidence?

(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below has committed an error in not applying Section 20 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act to the present Case?

Short facts of the case are that Appellants filed a suit for eviction on 24/7/91 against the Respondent Jai Prakash alleging that Appellants are Trustees of the Trust Bhagwatacharya Narayan Balaji Mandir, which is a public trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It was alleged that Appellant No. 3 is the Manager and Power of Attorney of the Trust. It was alleged that Respondent is tenant @ Rs. 350/- per month. It was alleged that Appellants require the suit accommodation for running the Ayurvedic Dispensary for which a resolution was passed by the Appellant Trust on 7.7.90, wherein it was resolved that in the memory of late Madhavacharya Swami public dispensary be opened. It was alleged that Respondent was requested in the meeting of managing committee to vacate the suit accommodation but inspite of assurance the accommodation was not vacated. It was alleged that Respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.91, which has not been paid inspite of notice. It was prayed that suit filed by the Appellants be decreed and the Respondent be directed to vacate the suit accommodation. The suit was contested by the Respondent by filing written statement, wherein all the plaint allegations were denied. It was also denied that the suit is maintainable. It was alleged that since the Trust is not registered under the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It was alleged that registration under the Bombay Public Trust Act shall not be valid for the properties situated in Madhya Pradesh. It was alleged that for filing the suit the Appellant Trust ought to have been registered under the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act. It was also alleged that the accommodation which is in occupation of the Respondent is not enough for opening the dispensary. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit against which an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed, hence this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Courts below dismissed the suit on extraneous grounds. It is submitted that to prove the case Appellant examined Appellant No. 3, who was the Manager and Power of Attorney of the Trust and also submitted the documents to prove the requirement of the Trust. It is submitted that need of the Appellants has not been held to be bonafide only because from the evidence adduced by the Appellants it was found that some of the properties, which were occupied by the tenants were sold by the Appellant Trust. It is submitted that it cannot be a ground for holding that need of the Appellants is not bonafide. Learned Counsel submits that if the learned Court below was having any doubt about the bonafides of Appellant/trust, then conditions could have been imposed on the Appellants. It is submitted that appeal filed by the Appellants be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

Shri N.K. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the Respondent, submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in holding that need of the Appellants is not bonafide. It is submitted that the Trustees are from Mumbai and whole object is to get the suit accommodation vacated and sell out the property on higher price. It is submitted that the Trust is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, therefore, suit filed by the Appellants is not maintainable. It is submitted that appeal filed by the Appellants be dismissed.

From perusal of record, it is evident that the Appellant/Shri Bhagwatacharya Narayan Dharmarth Trust, Balaji Mandir is a public trust having a Narsingh Temple at Alirajpur. The trust is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act State Government issued notification dated 07/09/89 whereby accommodations owned by public trust registered under M.P. Public Trust Act 1951 were exempted from all the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. This notification was challenged before this Court and this Court in the matter of Chintamani Chandramohan Agrawal, reported in 1994 MPLJ 597 held that notification dated 07/09/89 granting exemption u/s 3(1) of the Act is constitutionally illegal and void being violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Ultimately the matter travelled upto Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. v. Chintamani Agrawal 1999 (2) JLJ 379 wherein it was held that the notification dated 07/09/89 was valid. In the matter of Baburam v. State of M.P. 1997 (1) MPWN 3 Division Bench of this Court also held that notification exempting the public trust from all provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was valid. This position of law is further affirmed by this Court in the matter of Kewalchand v. Aachalgachha Kachhi Bisa Oswal Jain Swetambar Dharmik Evam Parmarthik Nyas 2010 (1) MPLJ 159, wherein this Court held that accommodation owned by public trust is exempted from all the provisions of the Act.

So far as registration of trust is concerned, undisputedly Appellant/trust is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Question which needs answer is whether a Trust registered at Bombay can also claim exemption of M.P. Accommodation Control Act because of notification dated 07/09/89? The scheme and object of the Bombay Public Trust Act was to regulate and to make better public religious and charitable trusts in the State of Bombay. Object and scheme of M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 is also same. In the matter of Rameshwar Prasad v. Pandit Krishna Mohanath Raina 1968 MPLJ 545 wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that in a case where the trust having principal office outside Madhya Pradesh do not require registration under the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act.

The purpose of registration of trust under the Public Trust Act is to regulate and to make the better trust, therefore, in case where trust is having its properties in more then one State, then it is not expected from the trust to get it registered in all the States where the properties are situated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the trust is registered at Bombay and the property of the Appellant trust is also situated in M.P., therefore, the registration of the Appellant trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, suffice the purpose and the exemption granted u/s 3(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act is equally applicable for the Appellant trust.

From perusal of the judgment it is evident that the learned Courts below dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant Trust holding that the Appellant trust has failed to make out a case for eviction u/s 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act as the Appellant has failed to prove the bonafide requirement. Section 3(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act empowers the Government to exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act which is owned by educational, relegious or charitable institution. Even if an institution who is not covered u/s 3(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act files a suit for eviction, then too, the said institution is not governed by Section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, but is governed by Section 20 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, which lays down a special provision for recovery of possession where the landlord is any company or other body_body corporate or any local authority or any public institution. Since Appellant Trust is public institution, therefore, Section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act is not applicable in the present case. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that Appellant Trust is not entitled for the benefit of exemption as Appellant Trust is registered at Bombay, then too, it is only Section 20 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act which is applicable. Since the Appellant is a registered charitable Trust, therefore, in view of the notification dated 07/09/89 it was not necessary for the Appellant to make out a case either u/s 12 or 20 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and the Appellant was entitled to terminate the tenancy of the Respondent u/s 106 of T.P. Act. In view of this, this Court is of the view that the learned Courts below committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the Appellant trust holding that the Appellant trust failed to prove that the suit accommodation is required bonafidely for running Ayurvadic Dispensary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are set aside and decree of eviction is passed in favour of Appellant holding that the Appellant shall be entitled to get vacant possession of the suit accommodation.

To save the Respondent from the peril of eviction six months'' time is granted to the Respondent to vacate the suit accommodation, provided Respondent furnishes an undertaking within four weeks to the effect that Respondent shall handover the vacant possession of the suit accommodation peacefully on or before 31.01.2011 to the Appellants and shall also deposit the entire arrears of rent and cost, if any, within the period of four weeks and shall pay the rent regularly to the Appellant as per law. In case of failure on the part of Respondent in submitting the undertaking or in complying the other conditions, Appellants shall be at liberty to get the suit accommodation vacated forthwith.

With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to cost.