LexBETIBAI AND ORS. versus NATHOORAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'\ 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 a shop 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. F On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the suit was liable 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 G HELD : 1. The properties belonging to religious and charitable ( 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. 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. S.M. Rai, B.M. Sharma and T.N. Singh for the Appellants. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave grnted. B c D 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 straightaw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.