Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 709 (MP)

R. K. Shrivastava v. Anjuman

2005-07-12

N.K.MODY

body2005
JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2004 passed by II ADJ, Indore in Regular Civil Appeal No. 26/2004, whereby the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2004 for eviction of appellant was passed by 11th Civil Judge Class-I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 52-A/03 was confirmed, present appeal has been filed. Short admitted facts of the case are that appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation @ Rs. 150/- per month of respondent No.1. Suit was tiled for eviction by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that tenancy of the appellant has been terminated under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Hence, appellant is entitled for vacation of the suit premises. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that ownership of the respondent No.1 is in dispute as the respondent No.1 has already filed the suit for declaration to the effect that it be declared that suit property is wakf Property. It is submitted that said suit was filed in the year 1969 and it is yet to be decided. Learned counsel further submits that in view of this when the rights of respondent No. 1 is sub-judiced decree of eviction cannot be passed against the appellant. It is further submitted that so far as contention of the appellant that the suit ought to have been filed under section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act is concerned, since the suit property is managed by the trustees of the Wakf and the said property is Wakf property, therefore, provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act are not attracted. Reliance has been placed on a decision reported in 1999 (2) JLJ 380 , Betibai and others v. Nathooram and others, wherein Hon'ble apex Court held that, "The decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Chintamani 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, J. was a member and the notification dated 7.9.1989, by which the properties belonging to Public Charitable trusts and the Wakf were exempted, was upheld. It was in that judgment held, inter alia, as under: "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 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. Learned counsel for the State of MP has invited our attention to the letter dated March 26, 1976, by the then Prima 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 by the Wakf. Thereafter, the State of MP 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 issuing the impugned notification. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. We seek support from the judgment of this Court in S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of T.N. (1985) 1 SCC 290 ." Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision reported in 1999 (2) JLJ 379 State of M.P. and another v. Chintamani Agarwal (Smt.) and others, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court considered the notification dated 7.9.1989 whereby the exemption was granted to the Respondent No.1. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the grant of exemption is valid. In view of this, there remain\nothing. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be granted time of six months to vacate the suit accommodation. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, time prayed is granted. In view of this, there remain\nothing. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be granted time of six months to vacate the suit accommodation. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, time prayed is granted. Operation of judgment and decree passed by the Court below shall remain stayed till 12.1.2006, subject to furnishing an undertaking by the appellant before the executing Court to the effect that he will vacate the suit accommodation peacefully on or before the expiry of the period mentioned herein above. The undertaking be filed within a month. With the aforesaid observations appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.