ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. In view of commonality of the issue involved, on the joint request of the parties, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order. 2 W.P.No.7404/2013. 2. Facts are taken from W.P.No.7404/2013. 3. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 16.09.2013, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 13 (1) & 13 (2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity, the 'Act of 1961') has been dismissed. 4. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction and for recovery of rent against present petitioner. It is pleaded by him that he is trustee of a registered trust. The said trust is registered under the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act. 5. In the plaint, the present petitioner, is descried as a defendant of suit shop at the rate of Rs. 1,325/- per month. It is stated that by resolution dated 16.12.2012, the trustee have decided to enhance the rent to Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is stated that plaintiff is not depositing the rent regularly and, therefore, defendant is in arrears of rent. 6. The present petitioner filed his written statement and contended that he is regularly depositing the requisite rent. The rent is being deposited in relevant account maintained at Bank of India. The defendant moved an application under Section 13 (1) (2) of Act of 1961. It is contended in the said application that the rate of rent is under dispute. Therefore, the trial court may fix the rent which will be deposited. The plaintiff filed reply to this application. The trial court disallowed the said application of defendant. Assailing this order, it is contended by Shri S.K. Shrivastava that the findings of the court below are perverse. Section 13 (1) of said Act are very much applicable. The court below has not dealt with the point 3 W.P. No. 7404/2013 raised by the petitioner. The petitioner being a tenant has a right to deposit the rent. The trial court has an inherent power to get the rent deposited. The trial court may fix the amount of rent also. 7. Shri S.K. Shrivastava submits that the plaintiff-trust needs to establish that its income is being utilised in religious and charitable purpose. In addition, the plaintiff was required to show that the suit shop is part of the trust property. The trial court may fix the amount of rent also. 7. Shri S.K. Shrivastava submits that the plaintiff-trust needs to establish that its income is being utilised in religious and charitable purpose. In addition, the plaintiff was required to show that the suit shop is part of the trust property. In support of his submissions, he relied on 2010 (3) MPLJ 428 (Reg. Vidhichand Dharamshala Trust, Gwalior v. Shyam Singh & Ors.) and AIR 2013 Calcutta 102 (Murlimal Santram & Co. v. Bata India Limited). He fairly apprised that judgment of Shyam Singh (supra) stood overruled to some extent in 2013 (4) MPLJ 679 (Scindia Devasthan, Regd. Charitable Trust v. Praveen Kumar Nigam & Ors.). 8. Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order passed by the court below. He submits that the order of court below is in accordance with law. Hence, no interference is warranted. He relied on 1999 (2) JLJ 380 (Betibai & Ors. v. Nathooram & Ors.) and AIR 2003 SC 1883 (Ramgopal and another v. Balaji Mandir Trust and Ors.). 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that in Praveen Kumar Nigam (supra), the larger Bench has answered the reference in a different manner. 11. It is seen that before the larger bench, the question was "Whether in each and every case a registered religious charitable public trust is obliged to prove that it's income is being 4 W.P.No.7404/2013 utilised in religious and charitable purpose of the Trust?" This was answered by the Division Bench as under:- "In view of the aforesaid discussions our answer on the question referred is : "that in each and every case a registered religious and charitable public trust is not obliged to prove that it's income is being utilised in religious and charitable purpose of the trust". 12. Shri S.K. Shrivastava, relied on judgment of Shyam Singh (supra) in order to draw the attention of this Court on a Government notification dated 07th September, 1989 (reproduced in page 436). 13. This notification shows that as per Section 3 (2) of Act of 1961, the State Government has exempted certain accommodation owned by Wakf and Public Trust. 12. Shri S.K. Shrivastava, relied on judgment of Shyam Singh (supra) in order to draw the attention of this Court on a Government notification dated 07th September, 1989 (reproduced in page 436). 13. This notification shows that as per Section 3 (2) of Act of 1961, the State Government has exempted certain accommodation owned by Wakf and Public Trust. Shri S.K. Shrivastava has taken pains to submit that in view of special objection of the petitioner in the written statement, the court below should have dealt with this aspect. 14. A careful reading of application preferred by the petitioner under Section 13 (1) & (2) of M.P. Accommodation Act, (Annexure P-4), shows that petitioner has neither raised objection regarding utilisation of income in religious and charitable purpose nor petitioner has raised objection that suit shop does not belongs to the Trust. Thus, the court below opined that provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act are not applicable on the petitioner. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. Since, aforesaid two objections are not raised in the application, Annexure P-4, the court below had no occasion to deal with the said aspect. In other words, I am unable to hold that trial court has committed any error of law in not deciding the special objection aforesaid. The said special objection is raised in written statement. The court below 5 W.P.No.7404/2013 may at its discretion frame an issue at appropriate stage in this regard. Since, these objections were not raised in Annexure P-4, no fault can be found in the order of court below. Apart from this, so far the first objection regarding utilisation of income in religious and charitable purpose is concerned, it pales into insignificance in view of larger Bench judgment of this Court in Praveen Kumar Nigam (supra). The second objection that property does not belong to trust has not been raised in the application, Annexure P-4. Thus, on this count also no fault can be found in the order impugned. The other judgments cited by Shri S.K. Shrivastava have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution can be made, if order is passed by the court having no jurisdiction. It suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference. The other judgments cited by Shri S.K. Shrivastava have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution can be made, if order is passed by the court having no jurisdiction. It suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference. The basic purpose to exercise powers under Article 227 of Constitution is to ensure that the courts below acted within the bounds of their authority and not to interfere as a matter of routine or on a drop of hat. This view is taken by Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 . The Court below has taken a plausible view. I find no reason on which interference can be made. 15. Petitions are bereft of merits and are hereby dismissed. No cost. 16. Registry is directed to keep true copy of this order in all the connected writ petitions.