Mufajjal vs Smt. Mariyambai
2022 Latest Caselaw 5442 MP

                                                                       1
                                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                              AT INDORE
                                                                     BEFORE
                                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                               ON THE 13th OF APRIL, 2022

                                                        SECOND APPEAL No. 783 of 2020

                                           Between:-
                                   1.      MUFAJJAL S/O HAKIMUDDIN , AGED ABOUT 53
                                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
                                           R/o: RELIANCE SHOE PALACE TEEN BATTI
                                           SQUARE, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.      JULFIKAR S/O HAKIMMUDDIN AND ANR. , AGED
                                           ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
                                           R/o: RELIANCE SHOE PALACE TEEN BATTI
                                           SQUARE, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....APPELLANTS
                                           (BY SHRI H.Y. Mehta Adv.)

                                           AND

                                   1.      SMT. MARIYAMBAI W/O SAIFUDDIN BOHRA ,
                                           AGED     ABOUT   53   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                           HOUSEWIFE
                                           R/o: JUNIOR RAJWADA, HAIBAT RAO MARG,
                                           DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.      SMT. RUKSHANA W/O TAIYYAB ALI BOHARA ,
                                           AGED     ABOUT   48  YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                           HOUSEWIFE
                                           R/o:JUNIOR RAJWADA, HAIBAT RAO MARG,
                                           DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                                           (BY SHRI Manoj Kumar Sahni Adv.)

                                         This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
                                         Heard on admission.
                                                                        ORDER

Respondents/plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for eviction of the suit shop on the ground of bonafide need for starting business of their spouse and sons. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2016 decreed the suit on the ground of bonafide need under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, and the same was also affirmed by the first appellate court vide judgment dated 14.2.2020.

Signature Not Verified SAN Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after passing the judgment Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.04.13 19:31:52 IST of first appellate court, vacant possession of the suit house has been delivered to

the respondents by the appellants in the execution proceedings filed before the executing court.

Learned counsel for the appellants fairly admits that possession of the suit house has been handed over to the respondents according to the decree of first

appellate court.

In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the arrears of rent or mesne profit and possession of the suit house has also been handed over to the respondents in the execution proceedings conducted by the executing court. Therefore, there is no substance in this second appeal and nothing remains for its adjudication and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal.

Hence this second appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.04.13 19:31:52 IST