MANGILAL Vs. CHUTURBHUJA MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(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 in as much as the Notification issued under Section 3(2) of the said Act was held by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh in Chaintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 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.) The Notification issued on 7-9-1989 under the above Section reads as follows:-