HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Review Petition No.23 of 2009 Post for pronouncement of order on 24m April, 2009 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge APPLICANTI: Suresh H. Lai Advocate (Appellant)/ (Defendant) Versus NON-APPLICANTI: Shri Satyanarayan Mandir Samiti (Respondent)/ (Piaintiff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR ’ Review Petition No.23 of 2009 {Review application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} Present: Mr. B.P. Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (Passed on 24‘“ April, 2009) . This petition is for review of the judgment dated 3—3-2009 passed in Second Appeal No.153/2008 on the ground that after due diligence the applicant was not able to point out the continuance of notmcation dated 7-9-1989 notified by the original State of Madhya Pradesh even after reorganization of the present new State of Chhattisgarh and dictum & ratio in the matter of Chintamani Chandra Mohan Agarwal and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another1. . l have heard learned counsel for the applicant. . Vide the judgment impugned dated 3-3—2009, Second Appeal No.153/2008 was dismissed and also held that the respondent Public Trust is exempted from application of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in the light of Notmcation No.F—24-(4)-83-XXXll-l dated 7—9-1989. , Learned counsel for the applicant argued that he is not pressing the ground of continuance of notification in the light of Sections 2 (f), 78 & 79 1 1994 M.P.L.J. 597 APPLICANT/: Suresh H. Lal Advocate, S/o Late (Appellant)l Heerabhai LaL aged about 52 years, (Defendant) Caste Gujrati, Lohana, Occupation Advocacy, Office Shri Satyanarayan Dharamshala, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, R/o Mahesh Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus NON-APPLICANT/: Shri Satyanarayan Mandir . Samiti, (Respondent)/ Through President Shri Satyanarayan (Plaintiff) Lohiya, aged about 58 years, Caste Lohiya (Agrawai), R/o Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Post, Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) of the MP. Reorganization Act, 2000. He further argued that in the case of Chintamani (supra) the aforesaid notification has been declared ultra vires relating to respondent No.2 of that case. The Hon’ble High Court of M.P‘ has not declared the notification as a whole or in part ultra vires. Therefore, the present applicant is required to prove that the notification is constitutionally illegal and void and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia in relation to the present non-applicant. Learned counsel further relied in the matter of Boolchand v. Atalram Sindhi Dharmashala Trust and othersz in which it has been held that the State Government cannot exempt the registered institutions from the operation of section 3 (2) of the Act, if the whole income derived from them is not being utilized for such institutions. . in Second Appeal No.153/2008, foltowing substitution questions of law were proposed on behalf of the applicant/appellant in which question No.D relates to exemption from the provisions of the Act:- A. Whether, the Courts below were justified to pass the judgment and decree of eviction and damages looking to the evidence available on record? B. Whether, the President/Chairman of the Shri Satyanarayan Mandir Samiti registered Trust was competent person to initiate legal proceeding against the defendant regarding suit premises contrary to the resolution No.4 dated 16.04.2000 passed by the executive body of the plaintiff trust/samiti by authorizing to Shankar Lal Soni, the Member Secretary of the plaintiff/trust for initiating legal proceeding against the tenants? C. Whether, the Lower Appellate Court was justmed to reject the applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. holding that sought amendment and documents are not relevant for the adjudication of the appeal/suit? D. Whether, in the present form of suit, the plaintiff was exempted from applying the provisions of MP. Accommodation Control Act being charitable endowment/trust? 2 1997 M.P.A.C.J. 255 M§AWMMWMW55MWWWM ‘V X WWW 3 E. Whether, the plaintiff's suit could be decreed for want of proof of legal and bonafide requirements of the plaintiff trust? F. Whether, the Courts betow were justified in granting a decree of damage @ Rs.4/— per day looking to the facts and circumstances of the case? G. Whether, termination of tenancy of appeiiant is contrary to 106 of T.P. Act? 6. The Court of first instance has also framed the issue reiating to applicability of the provisions of the Act as question No.2 which reads as follows: - wmftsnmwnoqotmmwmigai emmm swig? 7. The aforesaid issue framed by the Court of first instance was decided as negative. Judgment & decree of the trial Court was challenged in first appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Rainandgaon. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned first appellate Court vide its judgment & decree dated 19—3-2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.11-A/2007 affirmed the judgment & decree dated 10—2—2003 passed by the Court of first instance in Civil Suit No.192-Al2001. Both the Courts below have provided opportunity of hearing to the parties on the issues so framed and on the basis of ocular & documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, both the Courts below have decided the issue relating to application of the provisions of the Act as negative. Both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity in decreeing the suit. 8. ln the present review petition the applicant has not been able to show any mistake or error apparent on the face of record for exercising the provisions contained in Order 47 of the C.P.C. ln absence of any such apparent error or mistake in the iudgment passed by this Court, the present review petition is not sustainable, the same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed with costs. ' sm— T.P. Sharma . Judge Soma