- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mangilal v. Shri Chuturbhuja Mandir .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, the owner of premises occupied by the appellant as a tenant, instituted a civil suit seeking the appellant’s ejectment. The matter was tried as though the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (“the Act”) did not apply, and the trial court dismissed the suit. On the respondent’s appeal, the first-appellate court decreed ejectment. The appellant then filed a second appeal before the High Court, asserting that the Act was applicable because a notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Act (dated 7-9-1989) had been declared unconstitutional in Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal v. State of M.P., 1994 MPLJ 597. The High Court rejected that contention, reasoning that the earlier decision concerned a Wakf, not a Mandir, and it upheld the decree for ejectment. The present opinion reviews that High Court judgment; notice was served on the respondent, but no appearance was entered, and only the appellant was heard.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the 7-9-1989 notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, having been declared unconstitutional in Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal, was void for all categories of institutions or only for Wakfs.
- If the notification was void in its entirety, whether the respondent could maintain a “simpliciter” civil suit for ejectment without invoking the protections and procedures prescribed by the Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The 1994 Division Bench decision in Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal struck down the 7-9-1989 notification as unconstitutional and invalid, leaving no effective exemption under Section 3(2).
- Because the notification was void, the premises were governed by the Act, and an ejectment suit could proceed only in accordance with the Act’s requirements; therefore, the respondent’s ordinary civil suit was not maintainable.
Respondent's Position
The respondent did not appear at the present hearing. The High Court had earlier accepted the view that the 1994 judgment applied only to Wakf properties, implicitly supporting the respondent’s stance that the notification still exempted Mandirs; however, no detailed argument from the respondent is recorded in the opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal v. State of M.P., 1994 MPLJ 597 | Held the 7-9-1989 notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Act unconstitutional and invalid. | The court relied on this precedent to conclude that the notification was void in toto, not merely in respect of Wakf properties. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined Section 3(2) of the Act, which permits the State Government to exempt certain accommodations by notification. It noted that the 7-9-1989 notification exempted properties owned by Wakfs and public trusts (including Mandirs) from the Act. Referring to the Division Bench decision in Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal, the court observed that the notification had been declared “unconstitutional and invalid” without any limitation to Wakf properties. Consequently, the notification ceased to exist in law.
With no operative notification, accommodations owned by religious or charitable trusts remained subject to the Act. The respondent therefore could not bypass the statutory regime and file an ordinary civil suit for ejectment. The respondent was required to seek relief, if any, under the provisions of the Act. As no evidence was presented of any fresh, valid notification re-enacting the exemption, the basis for the respondent’s suit failed.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The High Court’s judgment was set aside and the respondent’s suit for ejectment was dismissed.
Implications: The decision restores the protective reach of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act to properties owned by educational, religious, or charitable institutions unless and until a constitutionally valid exemption is issued. While it relies on existing precedent rather than creating new doctrine, it reinforces that once a notification is declared unconstitutional, it is void for all purposes and categories, thereby preventing landlords in similar circumstances from avoiding the Act’s tenant-protective provisions through ordinary civil suits.
1. Though notice was served on the respondent none appears for the respondent. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was a tenant under the respondent herein. The respondent filed a normal civil suit for ejectment of the appellant. The suit was proceeded with as if the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter called “the Act”) are not applicable. The suit was dismissed. The appeal was allowed. A second appeal was filed in the High Court. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the High Court that the Act applies inasmuch as the notification issued under Section 3(2) of the said Act was held by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh in Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal v. State of M.P 1994 MPLJ 597 to be unconstitutional and invalid. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The High Court was of the view that the said judgment will not apply to the present case by a Mandir as that case was decided with reference to a Wakf. On that ground, the High Court upheld the decree for ejectment.
2. We are of the view that the High Court was not right in proceeding as if the notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Act was considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the said judgment with reference to its application for Wakf alone. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court after referring to judgments of this Court has expressly held that the notification dated 7-9-1989 was unconstitutional and invalid. The effect of that was that there was no notification under Section 3(2) of the Act. Section 3(2) of the Act reads as follows:
“3. Act not to apply to certain accommodations.—(1)***
(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.”
3. The notification issued on 7-9-1989 under the above section reads as follows:
“Notification No. F-24-(4)-83-XXXII-I, dated the 7th September, 1989.—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 accommodation 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 provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (No. XLI of 1961).”
4. In the absence of such notification the respondent cannot file a suit simpliciter for ejectment without resorting to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was not brought to our notice that any other notification was subsequently issued. In the circumstances, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the suit for ejectment stands dismissed.
Alert