JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17/01/2008 passed by III additional District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Appeal No.44-A/07 whereby the judgment dated 29/07/06 passed by III Civil Judge, Class-I, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 97-A/2000 whereby the suit filed by respondent was decreed, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that on 21.12.98 respondent filed a suit against the appellant alleging that the respondent is a public Trust registered under the provisions of M.P. Public Trusts Act. It was alleged that respondent is owner of suit accommodation situated at Nayapura Road, Mandsaur, in which appellant is tenant @ Rs.30/- per month and is carrying on Hotel. It was alleged that respondent is irregulary in payment of rent and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.95. It was alleged that inspite of notice dated 1.1.98 appellant has paid only a sum of Rs. 840/-, but is still in arrears. It was alleged that respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the activities of respondent Trust, for which respondent is having no other alternative accommodation. It was further alleged that vide resolution dated 18.6.98 President of the trust was authorised to file a suit and it was prayed that decree of eviction be passed. Vide amendment dated 24.9.04 it was alleged that vide notice dated 2.8.98 tenancy of the appellant was terminated w.e.f. 31.7.98. 3. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement, wherein it was not disputed that the appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation. It was alleged that no rent is due against the appellant. It was alleged that the moment power of attorney of the respondent comes to collect the rent, it is being paid by the appellant. It was denied that respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the trust activities. It was alleged that notice received by the appellant was duly replied. It was denied that tenancy of the appellant was validly terminated. In special plea it was alleged that appellant is tenant right from 1960. Initially the rent was Rs. 7/- per month. It was alleged that on 8.5.1961 one more room was given to the appellant and rent was enhanced by Rs. 5/-. It was further alleged that the rent was enhanced from 1967 to Rs. 17/- and in the year 1975 it was enhanced to Rs. 30/-. Initially the rent was Rs. 7/- per month. It was alleged that on 8.5.1961 one more room was given to the appellant and rent was enhanced by Rs. 5/-. It was further alleged that the rent was enhanced from 1967 to Rs. 17/- and in the year 1975 it was enhanced to Rs. 30/-. It was alleged that respondent is not entitled for a decree of eviction. It was also alleged that the object of the respondent is not in public interest. On the contrary respondent intends to earn the money. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit, against which an appeal was filed, which was dismissed, hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed grave error in passing the decree against the appellant. It is submitted that since the respondent Trust is not using the income of the respondent Trust for charitable purposes and for the welfare of the public at large, therefore, respondent is not entitled for a decree of eviction. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below proceeded the case assuming that the respondent Trust is exempted from the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It is submitted that since the income of the respondent Trust is not being used for carrying on the charitable activities, therefore, learned Courts below committed error in exempting the respondent Trust from the provisions of M.P. Public Trusts Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Boolchand vs. Atalram Sindhi Dharmashala Trust, 1998 (1) MPWN 113 = 1997 MPACJ 255 wherein after enforcement of the notification issued by State Government, this Court held that it is well established that no subordinate legislation can exceed the powers given by the parent statute. Therefore, in order to apply the rule of ut res masis valeat quam poreat and to hold the notification valid, it has to be read as applicable to only those registered educational, religious or charitable institution of Wakfs, the whole of income derived from which is utilised for such institutions. Therefore, in order to apply the rule of ut res masis valeat quam poreat and to hold the notification valid, it has to be read as applicable to only those registered educational, religious or charitable institution of Wakfs, the whole of income derived from which is utilised for such institutions. The State Government cannot exempt the aforesaid registered institutions from the operation of section 3(2) of the Act, if the whole income derived from them is not being utilised for such institutions. Learned counsel further submits that there are various complaints to the effect that the money generated by the respondent Trust is not being utilized for the Trust activities. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since vide notification dated 7.9.89 in exercise of powers conferred by section 3(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, State Government has exempted all the Trusts from the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, therefore, learned Courts below committed no error in passing the decree against the appellant holding that the respondent Trust is exempted from the provisions of M.P. Public Trusts Act. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, since no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, therefore, appeal be dismissed. 7. From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case respondent has filed the documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/6. Ex. P/1 is the order dated 12.7.97 passed by Registrar, Public Trusts, Ex. P/2 is the list of trustees, Ex. P/3 is notice, Ex. P/4 is acknowledgment, Ex. P/5 is reply of notice and Ex. P/6 is resolution. While appellant has filed the documents Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/3. Ex. D/1 is the receipt, Ex. D/2 & 3 are the postal receipt and money order coupons. Respondent has examined Madanlal as PW/1. While appellant has examined himself as DW/1. 8. P/3 is notice, Ex. P/4 is acknowledgment, Ex. P/5 is reply of notice and Ex. P/6 is resolution. While appellant has filed the documents Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/3. Ex. D/1 is the receipt, Ex. D/2 & 3 are the postal receipt and money order coupons. Respondent has examined Madanlal as PW/1. While appellant has examined himself as DW/1. 8. Section 3(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act reads as under :- Section-3 Act not to apply to certain accommodations; (2) The Government may, by notification, exempted 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. 9. Validity of section 3(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was challenged before this Court in the matter of Kanhaiyalal Thakurdasa vs. Gulab Bai Digambar Jain, 1965 MPLJ 188 Divisional Bench of this Court held that sub-section (2) of section 3 are not ultravires and there is no excessive delegation. 10. In exercise of powers conferred by section 3(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act vide notification dated 7th September 1989 State Government has issued the notification No. F-24-(4)-83-XXXII-I which reads as under :- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act, (No.XLI of 1961), the State Government hereby exempts all the accommodations owned by - (i) the Wakf, registered under the Wakf Act, 1954 (No.29) of 1950 or (ii) the public trust registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 (No. XXX of 1951), for an educational religious charitable purpose, from all the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (No. XLI of 1961). 10. The validity of the notification was challenged in the matter of Chintamani Agrawal vs. State of M.P. 1994 MPLJ 597 wherein it was held that the provisions of section 3 of the Act are constitutional, however, notification was quashed, against which a SLP was filed by the State and Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment reported in 1999(2) JLJ 379 (SC) held that the notification is valid. Similarly, this Court also in the matter of Baburam vs. State of M.P. 1997(1) MPWN 3 held the notification as valid. Similarly, this Court also in the matter of Baburam vs. State of M.P. 1997(1) MPWN 3 held the notification as valid. In the matter of Kewalchand vs. Aachalgachha Kachhi Bisa Oswal Jain Swetamber Dharamik Evam Parmarthik Nyas, 2010(1) MPLJ 158 this Court held that accommodation owned by public trust is exempted from all the provisions of the Act. 11. From the aforesaid position of law it is crystal clear that the provisions of section 3(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was held constitutional and the notification was also held valid by this Court which was maintained by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, in a matter where trust is landlord, tenancy can be straightway terminated by issuing notice under section 106 of T.P. Act. In the matter of Betibai vs. 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 M.P. Public Trusts Act, tenancy can be terminated straightway by issuing notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, the decree of eviction was passed by this Court also in the matter of Anantrao vs. Shri Achal Gachh Kachhi Bisa passed in SA. No. 258/08 and also in the matter of Madanlal vs. Shri Achal Gachh Kachhi Bisa passed in SA. 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. 13. So far as contention of the appellant that for claiming exemptron from the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act landlord Trust is required to prove that the whole of the income derived from, which is being utilised for that institution is concerned, in view of the aforesaid notification and also in view of the aforesaid position of law, it is not necessary for this Court to examine whether the whole income of the trust is being utilised for that purpose or not. Firstly because it is the job of the Registrar, Public Trust and not the Court and secondly for application of section 3(2) of the Act also it is not necessary for religious or charitable institution. Firstly because it is the job of the Registrar, Public Trust and not the Court and secondly for application of section 3(2) of the Act also it is not necessary for religious or charitable institution. Whether the income of the institution is being utilised for that institution or not, is required to be examined in the matter where exemption is being claimed by any Nursing Home or Maternity Home and not for religious or charitable institution. 14. So far as eviction suit being filed on behalf of institution is concerned, the restrictions imposed under section 12 of the Act are otherwise also not applicable as for those institutions special provisions for recovery of possession is laid down under section 20 of the Act, which lays down that in case public instituion requires the accommodation for the use of empolyees or for the furtherance of its activities, then, the suit for eviction can be filed and the decree of eviction can be passed, if the Court is satisfied- (a) that the tenant to whom such accommodations were let for use as a residence at a time when he was in the service or employment of the landlord, has ceased to be in such service or employment; (b) that the tenant has acted in contravention of the terms, express or implied, under which he was authorised to occupy such accommodation; or (c) that any other person is in unauthorised occupation of such accommodation; or (d) that the accommodation is required bona fide by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities. 15. As per explanation of section 20 of the Act for the purpose of section 20 of the Act “public institution” includes any educational institution, library, hospital and charitable dispensary. 16. In view of this, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and the learned Courts below committed no error in passing the impugned judgment whereby decree of eviction has been passed against the appellant. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and is hereby dismissed. 17. However, the order of eviction shall not be executed on or before 31.7.2011 on the condition that the appellant herein files an undertaking before the learned trial Court within six weeks to the following effect namely:- 1. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and is hereby dismissed. 17. However, the order of eviction shall not be executed on or before 31.7.2011 on the condition that the appellant herein files an undertaking before the learned trial Court within six weeks to the following effect namely:- 1. that the appellant 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/landlord on or before 31.7.2011. 2. that the appellant herein shall pay to the respondent/landlord arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and shall pay to the respondent/landlord future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the 10th day of every month. 18. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.