JUDGMENT 1. The instant second appeal preferred by the defendant/tenant under section 100 CPC assails the concurrent findings of both the Courts below decreeing a suit filed by the plaintiff / landlord for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant assails the said concurrent finding on the ground that the civil suit filed in the year 1992 under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ( for brevity “1961 Act”) by the respondent/ landlord was not maintainable as the 1961 Act was inapplicable to petitioner/ trust owing to the notification dated 7.9.1989 issued by the State under section 3(2) of the Act of 1961 inter alia exempting public trusts registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951. 4. In view of the limited point raised by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court refrains from dwelling into other aspect of the case. 5. Briefly stating the facts, the appellant/tenant was entered into tenancy of the accommodation by the respondent / landlord a registered public trust on 11.4.1978 on monthly rent of Rs. 25/- based on the duly executed tenancy deed dated 11.4.1978. The last rent of Rs. 300/- was paid by the appellant / tenant on 1.11.1982 for the period from 11.8.1980 to 10.8.1981. With effect from 11.8.1981 the arrears of rent which accumulated remained unpaid which led to respondent/landlord issuing statutory notice by registered AD post on 5.2.1983 demanding the unpaid arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. The said notice was received by the appellant/tenant on 10.2.1983 which led to institution of present suit in 1984. 6. Indisputably in the year 1984 when the suit was filed the plaintiff/trust had not been exempted from the application of provisions of 1961 Act as no notification had been issued under section 3(2) or (3) of the said Act. 7. The said notice was received by the appellant/tenant on 10.2.1983 which led to institution of present suit in 1984. 6. Indisputably in the year 1984 when the suit was filed the plaintiff/trust had not been exempted from the application of provisions of 1961 Act as no notification had been issued under section 3(2) or (3) of the said Act. 7. During pendency of the civil suit before learned trial Judge the notification under section 3(2) of the 1961 Act was issued on 7.9.1989 to the following extent :- “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 ( 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 1954), or (ii) the public trust registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 ( No. XXX of 1951), for an educational religious or charitable purpose, from all the purpose of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ( No. XLI of 1961)”. 8. Thus, learned counsel appellant/tenant submits that the said notification dated 7.9.1989 under section 3(2) of the 1961 Act ought to have been applied to the suit thereby non-suiting the plaintiff/landlord and leaving him to avail remedy under the general law of Transfer of Property Act. 9. Learned Courts below after placing reliance on the division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Shrivas v. Shri Murti Ramchandraji, reported in 2004(1) MPHT 225 , have held that said notification under section 3(2) of the 1961 Act cannot have retrospective application and thus would not apply to the instant lis initiated prior to issuance of the notification. Thus, the Courts have held that since the suit was instituted prior to issuance of this notification under section 3(2) and the rights and liabilities of the parties are to be determined on the factual scenario existing on the date of filing of this suit, the suit was rightly filed entertained and decided under the provisions of 1961 Act. 10. Thus, the Courts have held that since the suit was instituted prior to issuance of this notification under section 3(2) and the rights and liabilities of the parties are to be determined on the factual scenario existing on the date of filing of this suit, the suit was rightly filed entertained and decided under the provisions of 1961 Act. 10. However, learned counsel for the appellant/tenant placing reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Ramji Purshottam v. Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala, reported in (2004)6 SCC 455 , has contended that the view taken by Courts below in regard to applicability of the 1961 Act is incorrect and therefore, on the said basis a substantial question of law arises in the present case. 11. Before adverting to the decision of the apex Court, it would be apt to discuss the division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra (supra). 11.1 The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra (supra), was dealing with controversy having arisen due to doubt expressed by a Single Bench in the case of Santosh Kumar v. Jama Masjid Committee, Sagar, reported in 1998(1) MPJR 111 giving rise to the following question:- (i) Whether the notification dated 7.9.1989 under sub-section 2 of section 3 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 would apply to the suit filed on 8.3.1989 12. Since in the instant case, the suit was instituted prior to the notification dated 7.9.1989, substantial question of law proposed by the appellant/tenant herein stands answered by the said division bench decision of this Court in the case Ramesh Chandra (supra), which essentially lays down and reiterates the established principle of interpretation of statutes that the character of prospectivity is inherently presumed in every statute unless otherwise expressly provided in the same statute. Further that the rights acquired and obligations discharged cannot be taken away by the new law unless retrospectivity is contained therein or can be implied. Further that the rights acquired and obligations discharged cannot be taken away by the new law unless retrospectivity is contained therein or can be implied. While doing so, the division bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra (supra), distinguished the decision of the apex Court in the case of Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli, reported in AIR 1963 SC 358 where retrospective application of inclusion, replacing and cancelling of earlier notification was upheld on the ground that whenever new law is introduced by way of insertion or replacement or cancellation the new law can have retrospective operation. The said decision was distinguished in the case of Ramesh Chandra (supra), on the ground that the notification of exemption under section 3(2) of the 1961 Act is not a notification regarding replacement or cancellation or insertion as no such earlier notification ever existed. It was for the first time that the State by the said notification dated 7.9.1989 granted exemption to all the public trusts registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 from the application of the 1961 Act. 13. The decision of apex Court in the case of Ramji Purushottam (supra), relied upon by the appellant/tenant is thus of no avail to the appellant/tenant. 14. In view of above and the fact that the decision of apex Court in the case of Ramji Purushottam (supra), does not help the appellant/tenant, therefore this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law including the ones proposed by the appellant is made out. 15. Consequently, the present second appeal is dismissed. P.C. Chandil for appellant; R.K. Jain for respondent.