JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.09 passed by Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in Civil Appeal No. 1/07, whereby the judgment dated 15.12.06 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Shuja1pur in Civil Suit No. 102-A/05 whereby the decree of eviction was passed against the appellants, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the respondents/trust filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on 27.8.04 alleging that the respondent Shri Achalgachchh Kachchhi Visa Oswal Jain Shwetambar, Dharmik Parmarthik Nyas Trust is a religious and charitable trust, which is registered under the provisions of Public Trust Act by the Registrar, Public Trust, Shujalpur vide order dated 10.2.92. It was alleged that respondents trust is having a property situated at Shastri Marg, Shujalpur. It was alleged that appellants are tenant in the shop Nos. 1,2 & 4 and are paying rent @ Rs. 50-50 for shop Nos. 1 & 2 and Rs. 26/- for shop No.4, totalling Rs. 126/- per month. It was alleged that appellant No.1 and Chandarmal were doing the business in partnership in the name and style of M/s. Gendmal Shrimal Jain. It was alleged that Chandarmal has died. It was alleged that appellant No.1 and deceased Chandarmal were paying rent @ Rs. 126/- per month. It was alleged that appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are legal representatives of deceased Chandarmal. Further case of the respondent/trust was that the respondent/trust requires the suit accommodation bona fidely for carrying on the trust activities. It was alleged that in the adjoining premises which is shown in Schedule A respondent/trust is running a Charitable Hospital which is known as Mahaveer Chikitsalaya. It was alleged that respondent/trust requires the suit accommodation for further extending the activities of the hospital and other religious and Charitable activities. It was alleged that vide resolution dated 27.10.03 respondent/trust has resolved to take appropriate steps against the appellants for eviction. It was alleged that vide notice dated 5.7.04 tenancy of the appellants were terminated w.e.f. 31.7.04. Notice was duly served. It was alleged that the income of the trust from the land is being spent for the Charitable activities of the trust. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed against the appellants. 3. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement wherein tenancy was not disputed. Notice was duly served. It was alleged that the income of the trust from the land is being spent for the Charitable activities of the trust. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed against the appellants. 3. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement wherein tenancy was not disputed. It was denied that the respondent/trust requires the suit accommodation bona fidely for carrying on the trust activities. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit, which was maintained in appeal, hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submit that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that while passing the decree against the appellants holding that the respondent/trust is exempted from the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, (which shall be referred hereinafter as an "Act") learned Courts below committed error as the provisions of Section 3 of the Act has not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in shifting the burden on appellants to prove that the burden was on the appellants to prove that whole income of the trust was not utilised by the trust for their activities: It is submitted that the burden to prove the fact was on the respondents. It is submitted that since the respondents failed to prove that the income of the respondent/trust is being used for canying on the Charitable and religious activities of the trust, therefore, no exemption could have been given to the respondents and the suit ought to have been dismissed. Learned counsel submits that the decision in the matter of Kewalclwnd v. Aachalgachha Kachhi Eisa Oswal Jain Swetamber Dharamik Evam Parmarthik Nyas, 2010 (1) MPLJ 158 , wherein this Court held that accommodation owned by public trust is exempted from all the provisions of the Act, requires reconsideration. It is submitted that as per section 3 of the Act for claiming exemption it is necessary that whole of the income of the trust is being utilised for furtherance of the trust activities. It is submitted that as per section 3 of the Act for claiming exemption it is necessary that whole of the income of the trust is being utilised for furtherance of the trust activities. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that no specific plea was raised by the appellants in the written statement. It is submitted that since the plea was not raised in the written statement, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the decree against the appellants. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are concurrent findings of fact which requires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case respondent/ trust has filed the documents (Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-12). Exh. P-1 is the certificate issued by Registrar, Public Trust, Exh. P-2 is bye-laws, Exh. P-3 is the resolution dated 27.10.03 passed by the trust, Exh. P-4 is the balance-sheet for the year 2004-05, Exh. P-5 is sale certificate, Exh. P-7 is the certificate issued by the Municipal Committee, Shujalpur, Exh. P-8 and 9 are the receipts of rent, Exh. P-10 is the notice, Exh. P-11 is the reply of notice and Exh. P-12 is the proceedings whereby the election took place. Apart from this, respondent examined Dungarji Bhai (PW.1), Vallabhji Bhai (PW 2), Nanji Bhai (PW 3), while appellants have examined Shrimal Jain (DW 1) and Badrilal Malviya (DW 2). 7. Section 3 (2) of the Act reads as under:- Section 3. Act not to apply to certain accommodation. - (2) The Government may, by notification, exempt 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 utilised for that institution or nursing home or maternity home. 8. - (2) The Government may, by notification, exempt 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 utilised for that institution or nursing home or maternity home. 8. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act vide notification dated 7.9.89 State Government exempted all the accommodation owned by Wakf, registered under Wakf Act, 1954 and the public trust registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 for educational and religious charitable activities. The validity of the notification was challenged in the matter of State of M.P. v. Chintamani Agrawal wherein it was held that the provisions of section 3 of the Act are constitutional, however, notification was quashed, against which in SLP filed by the State, Hon'ble apex Court vide judgment reported in 1999 (2) JLJ 379 held that the notification is valid. Similarly, this Court also in the matter of Baburam v. State of M.P. 1997 (1) MPWN 3, held the notification as valid. 9. In the present case, no specific plea was raised by the respondent/trust that the income of the trust is not being utilised for carrying on the activities of the trust. Exh. P-4 is the balance-sheet for the year 2004-05. From perusal of the balance-sheet it is evident that the respondent/trust is having different accounts from where the trust activities are being carried out. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the income of the trust is not being utilised for carrying out the trust activities apart from this when the notification has been issued by the State Government whereby all the trusts been exempted and the validity of the notification has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to examine that the income of the trust is being utilised for the welfare of the trust. Otherwise also for this purpose Registrar of Public Trust is the Competent Authority. 10. Otherwise also for this purpose Registrar of Public Trust is the Competent Authority. 10. Apart from this even for the sake of arguments it is assumed that for getting the benefit of exemption it is necessary to prove that the income of the trust is being utilised for carrying on the activities of the trust and the burden is on the trust, then too, the provisions of section 12 of the Act will not apply in that case, as in that situation it is section 20 of the Act which governs the case. Section 20 of the Act deals with special provisions for recovery of possession for the accommodations of which landlord is public institution and the accommodation is required for the furtherance of its activities. Undisputedly the respondent No.1 is public institution. 11. In the matter of Anantrao v. Shri Achal Gachh Kachhi Bisa passed in SA No. 258/08 and also in the matter of Madanlal v. Shri Achal Gachh Kachhi Bisa passed in S.A. No. 972/07 this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.09 and 21.11.08 respectively has taken the view that the only requirement to obtain decree of eviction is to terminate the tenancy under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. In the matter of Betibai v. Nathooram 1999 (2) JLJ 380 = AIR 1999 SC 1767 , Hon 'ble apex Court has taken into consideration the notification dated 7.9.89 and has held that in view of the notification property belonging to registered and Charitable Trust exempted from the provisions of the M.P. Public Trust Act, tenancy can be terminated straightway by issuing notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Appellate Court committed no error in holding that the respondent/trust was entitled to claim exemption under section 3 of the Act. Hence, appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and is hereby dismissed. 12. However, the order of eviction shall not be executable on or before six months on the condition that the appellants herein file an undertaking before the learned trial Court within six weeks to the following effect namely :- (1) that the appellants herein shall not induct any other person in the suit premises and shall hand-over vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the respondent/trust on or before 28.2.2011. (2) that the appellants herein shall pay to the respondent/trust arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and shall pay to the respondent/ trust future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the 10th day of every month. 13. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.