RAMGOPAL AND ANR. versus BALAJI MANDIR TRUST AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 19-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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)-
D 
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 
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 c 
290, referred to. 
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 of MP. 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.