Mahesh Modi vs Smt. Usha
2021 Latest Caselaw 28 MP

                                                                       1                               SA-918-2018
                                            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        SA-918-2018
                                                    (MAHESH MODI AND OTHERS Vs SMT. USHA AND OTHERS)

                                    12
                                    Indore, Dated : 22-02-2021
                                          Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the appellants.
                                          Shri S.K. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents.

This appeal by appellant/tenant under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar (Mhow), District Indore in Civil Appeal

No.44/2016.

The appellate Court has modified the decree for eviction while confirming the findings so recorded in respect of grounds of eviction under Sections 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961'), however, findings so recorded for eviction under Section 12(1)(g) and 12(1)(i) of the Act have been reversed. As such, as on date there is concurrent finding of fact for eviction on the grounds as enumerated under Sections 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant while taking exception to the

impugned judgments and decrees has made sincere efforts persuading this Court that findings recorded are perverse in nature and de-hors the material on record. Learned counsel submits that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that either of two grounds; Sections 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) of the Act related to "nuisance" and "the accommodation has not been used without reasonable cause for which it was let out" were not proved regard being had to the evidence placed on record. Hence, the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord while referring to findings of Courts below on aforesaid two grounds submits that both the Courts below upon meticulous examination of evidence placed on record Signature Not Verified SAN have recorded impregnable finding of the fact related to grounds for eviction

Digitally signed by Vibha Pachori Date: 2021.02.24 18:47:31 IST 2 SA-918-2018 under Sections 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d)of the Act. There is no perversity in the judgments of the Courts below. He refers to Paragraphs 40, 43 and 49 of the appellate Court judgment to bolster his submission.

After detailed hearing of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that no case is made out to interfere with the findings of the Courts below.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has made fair submission contending that in the event this Court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of the fact, some breathing time may be given to the appellant/tenant to vacate the suit premises i.e. residential premises.

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer contending that appellant/tenant has occupied the premises for over a period of 55 years and the house is in dilapidated condition. The original landlord had filed the suit for eviction in the year 2014 and now his son is contesting the claim after his sad demise. Its over seven years that the respondents have been struggling hard seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit premises.

Upon hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that some equitable balance is required to be struck considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, though learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for two years time for vacating the residential premises but, this Court considered its appropriate to allow only six months time to vacate the residential premises on the following terms and conditions:-

(i) the appellant/tenant shall continue to pay the rent regularly without default to the respondent/landlord on every 5th day of succeeding month till expiry of six months;

(ii) the appellant shall not create any third party right over the suit property;

(iii) the appellant shall not change or alter the suit property in any matter whatsoever;

(iv) the appellant/tenant shall vacate and handover the peaceful Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by Vibha Pachori Date: 2021.02.24 18:47:31 IST 3 SA-918-2018 possession of suit premises to the respondent without any resistance on or before 23.08.2021;

(v) If the appellant/tenant fails to deliver peaceful possession on or before 23.08.201, the respondent/landlord shall be free to approach the concerned police station for providing police help to facilitate forcible eviction of the appellant. The concerned SHO of police station shall provide assistance for ensuring eviction of the appellant under such circumstances;

(vi) as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord that the house is in dilapidated condition then the appellant/tenant shall take due care and for any untoward happening the landlord/respondent shall not be responsible for the same;

(vii) in case, the appellant/tenant violates any one of the condition, the respondent/landlord shall be free to seek further order or direction from this Court;

(viii) the appellant/tenant shall furnish an undertaking before the trial Court within fifteen days from today to the aforesaid effect.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE

Vibha

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by Vibha Pachori Date: 2021.02.24 18:47:31 IST