Rajendra Singh vs Satish
2021 Latest Caselaw 949 MP

                                   1                                SA-1110-2020
         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     SA-1110-2020
                       (RAJENDRA SINGH Vs SATISH AND OTHERS)


Jabalpur, Dated : 22-03-2021
        Shri Hare Krishna Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant.

        Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard on the question of admission as well as on I.A.No. 2232/2021. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decreed dated 12.06.2020 passed by the First Additional

District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Balaghat (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/2019 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class I, Balaghat in Civil Suit No. 5A/2017. There are concurrent findings of the learned Courts below.

It is not in disputed that the respondents are the landlord and appellant is the tenant in the suit property for commercial purpose. Appellant is in occupation of the suit property prior to the year 2015 as the tenant to the previous owner namely Smt. Draupati Bai at the rate of Rs. 475/- for conducting business in the name of New Bharat Silai Machine Industries. On

16.10.2015, respondents purchased the suit property through registered sale deed from Smt.Draupati Bai and thereafter appellant became tenant of the respondents.

Respondents/landlord filed a civil suit for eviction on the need of residence and business under Sections 12(1)(e) and (f), arrears of rent under Section 12(1)(a) and for rebuilding under Section 12(1)(g)(h) and Section 12(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. The grounds raised by the respondents were found proved by the trial Court and thereafter eviction decree has been passed against the appellant along with arrears of rent.

Appellant challenged the findings and decree before the lower Appellate Court. Vide judgment dated 12.06.2020, the first Appellate Court confirmed the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court in favour of the 2 SA-1110-2020 respondents. The lower Appellate Court held that the appellant did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1) of the MP Accommodation Control Act and thus, his defence under Section 13(6) of the MP Accommodation Control Act was struck off.

The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant on the

ground that the learned trial Court committed material error in passing decree of eviction against the appellant. He had filed an application under Section 13(1) r/w Section 13(3) of the MP Accommodation Control Act seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent before the trial Court and also moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the CPC to amend his written statement for some clarification. Both the applications were dismissed by the trial Court without considering the fact that such an order would put the tenant on road. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 121/2019 before the High Court which is pending for adjudication. In this appeal, appellant has proposed substantial questions of law and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

Learned counsel for the respondents/landlord filed I.A.No. 3819/2021 along with relevant documents to show that in compliance of the order passed by the Courts below, the learned executing Court has executed the decree and possession of the suit property has already been handed over to the respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellant agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that on 08.03.2021, possession of the suit property has been handed over to the respondents landlord.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, nothing remains for consideration in this case. Further that there are concurrent findings of the Courts below and defence of the appellant has already been struck off under Section 13(6) of the MP Accommodation Control Act.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in 3 SA-1110-2020 the findings recorded by the learned Courts below.

Accordingly, this second appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, I.A.No. 2232/2021 is also dismissed.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE vidya Digitally signed by SREEVIDYA Date: 2021.03.23 16:53:32 +05'30'