Rajendra Prasad Sikka (Dead) ... vs Sanjeev Maheshwar
2021 Latest Caselaw 5899 MP

        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1
                         SA 688/2021
  Rajendra Prasad Sikka (D) through Legal Representatives vs.
                     Sanjeev Maheshwari

Gwalior, Dated :23/09/2021
      Heard through hybrid system of physical/ virtual hearing.

      Shri Prashant Sharma, Counsel for the appellant/defendant

Rajendra Prasad Sikka (D) through Legal Representatives.

      Shri JP Mishra, Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff.

      Heard on admission.

      This Second Appeal u/S. 100 of CPC has been filed against the

judgment and decree dated 19/04/2021 passed by First Additional

District Judge, Guna in Regular Civil Appeal No.72/2018, affirming

the judgment and decree dated 15/05/2018 passed by Fifth Civil Judge,

Class-I, Guna in Civil Suit No.23-A/2017.

      Facts

giving rise to present appeal, in short, are that

respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and filed a suit for

eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement u/S.12(1)(f) of MP

Accommodation Control Act. It is pleaded that initially, defendant

Rajendra was the tenant of disputed suit shop and was running a

business of ready-made garments and after his death, his legal heirs

were performing the same. It is pleaded that he was working in

Maheshwari Garments Firm at a package of Rs.1 lac per year and

resigned from his job on 30/06/2012. It is pleaded that now, he is

unemployed, therefore, he is in need of said suit shop for his business.

He is not in possession of any shop within local limits of Municipal THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 SA 688/2021 Rajendra Prasad Sikka (D) through Legal Representatives vs. Sanjeev Maheshwari

Corporation, Guna. It is further pleaded that on eastern side of disputed

shop, in another shop ad-measuring 7x12 ft. defendant Jagdish Prasad

is a tenant. Behind the shop, there is one room of size 8 x15 ft which is

required by plaintiff for the purpose of ready-made garments business.

Therefore, plaintiff sought eviction by removing partition of two shops

for running his business. It is further pleaded that arrears of rent @

Rs.2500/- pm from December 2012 to March, 2013 has not been paid

by defendant. On 31st January, 2013 the tenancy rights of the defendant

was closed by giving notice to him. On these grounds, he has filed a

suit for eviction as well as for recovery of rent against appellant/

defendant.

Appellant/defendant filed his written statement and denied the

plaint averments. It is pleaded that the intention of plaintiff is to

enhance the rent and he is the only son handling the business of his

father and, therefore, there is no bona fide requirement of plaintiff and

he is having an alternative accommodation.

The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence of

the parties, passed a decree of eviction against the appellant/defendant.

The appellant was also directed to pay Rs.2500/- pm towards arrears of

rent and he was further directed to hand over the vacant possession of

the suit premises within a period of two months from the date of

passing of judgment and decree i.e. 15/05/2018.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 SA 688/2021 Rajendra Prasad Sikka (D) through Legal Representatives vs. Sanjeev Maheshwari

Being aggrieved the judgment and decree passed by trial Court,

appellant/defendant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court.

During pendency of the appeal, appellant/defendant filed another

application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for bringing evidence

regarding alternative accommodation of plaintiff in Dubey Colony on

record and the same was dismissed by the appellate Court by discussing

the matter in detail. Thereafter, appellant/ defendant also filed another

application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for pleading that the

plaintiff was not an unemployed and same was dismissed. Thereafter,

another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was filed by

appellant/defendant seeking amendment in reply and same was

dismissed.

The appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated

19/04/2021, dismissed the appeal.

Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts

below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the learned

Court below has committed an error in granting a decree of eviction in

favour of respondent/plaintiff. The plaintiff did not need the suit shop

and he is financially quite capable. Before filing of the suit, the plaintiff

was engaged in contractor-ship and was also performing the business of

ready-made garments. Plaintiff did not disclose the details of his entire

property/income and, therefore, decree of eviction granted in favour of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 SA 688/2021 Rajendra Prasad Sikka (D) through Legal Representatives vs. Sanjeev Maheshwari

plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the

learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed

by Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh

Chand Gupta reported in AIR 1999 SC 2507.

Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submitted that the

Court below has not committed any error in taking material facts into

consideration while granting a decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(f)

of MP Accommodation Control Act. It is further submitted that the

landlord is the best judge and he has complete freedom to decide as to

whether for the purpose of carrying business he is in bona fide

requirement of suit premises or not. It is argued that the findings of fact

recorded by the Courts below need not require any interference. Hence,

prayed for dismissal of the appeal. In support of his contentions, he has

relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Raghvendra

Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary and Co. reported in AIR 2000 SC

534.

Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties.

On going through the record, it is seen that both the Courts

below have given a finding that plaintiff is in bona fide need of suit

accommodation for carrying his business and he is not having any other

accommodation for the said purpose.

It is well-established principle of law that this Court while THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 SA 688/2021 Rajendra Prasad Sikka (D) through Legal Representatives vs. Sanjeev Maheshwari

exercising powers u/S. 100 of CPC cannot interfere with the concurrent

findings of fact until and unless they are perverse and contrary to

record. This Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of

fact in a routine and casual manner. Concurrent findings of fact of both

the Courts below regarding landlord-tenant matter, is not required to be

interfered with unless shown to be perverse.

In view of above, I find no illegality or perversity in the findings

arrived at by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in

the present appeal.

As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

(Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge

MKB

MAHENDRA Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh,

KUMAR BARIK 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9e3451ee450d883083a 8e4cc8020eee6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2021.09.24 10:50:24 +05'30'