Judgment:
R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. The two Courts below have passed a decree for ejectment of the tenant/appellant from the suit accommodation, non-residential one (a shop), on the ground available under Section 12(l)(a) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
2. On 14-7-1978 this Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following substantial question of law : -
'Whether due to failure of the trial Court in provisionally deciding the dispute about the amount of arrears of rent due to the operation of provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act remained arrested and as such the Courts below were not justified in decreeing the claim of eviction under Section 12(1 )(a) of the Act on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act.'
3.During the course of hearing, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the appellant that the question framed by this Court did not arise for a decision in the appeal in view of the provisions contained in Section 3(1 )(a) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and hence the following additional question of law was framed on 24-7-1991: -
'Whether in view of the provisions contained in Section 3(1 )(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the Act would not apply to the suit accommodation.'
4. Section 3(1 )(b) of the Act provides as under : -
'3. Act not to apply to certain accommodations. - (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to -
(a).. .. etc.
(b) Accommodation which is the property of a local authority used exclusively for non-residential purposes.
(2) (not reproduced)'.
5. Admittedly the plaintiff/respondent is a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti constituted under Section 7 of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973, sub-section (3) whereof provides as under : -
'7. Establishment of market committee and its incorporation. -
(1) ... etc. etc.
(2) ... etc. etc.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force, every market committee shall for all purposes, be deemed to be a local authority.'
6. The combined effect of the abovesaid two provisions would be the suit accommodation being non-residential one and owned by a local authority, namely, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, shall be beyond' the purview of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Therefore, the question of deciding the case under that Act did not arise at all.
7. The suit will be governed by the general law of landlord and the tenant subject to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 111, relevant part thereof, provides :-
'111. Determination of lease. - A lease of immovable property determines -
(h) on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to the other.'
8. The present one is not a case where the lease might have been determined by forfeiture under Section 111(g) and hence the question of determining the rights and obligations of the parties by reference to Section 112 or 114, as submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant, does not arise at all. The notice for ejectment issued by the plaintiff to the defendant prior to the institution of the suit has been exhibited as Ex.P/1. It is a valid notice. Neither it has been pleaded nor has it been pointed out that there was any defect in the notice so as to invalidate it.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below deserve to be maintained, though for reasons different than those recorded by the Courts below.
10. The appeal is held to be without any merit and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee as per Schedule, if certified.
11. With a view to relieve the defendant/appellant from peril of sudden ejectment, it is directed that ejectment part of the decree shall not be executed for a period of three months.