Harishankar Purohit vs Smt. Vimla
2022 Latest Caselaw 6409 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                   Second Appeal No.1364/2021
                  (Harishankar Vs. Smt. Vimla Malviya)
                                  -1-

Indore, dated 28/04/2022
      Shri J. B. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Heard on the question of admission.
      The second appeal is admitted for final hearing on the
following Substantial Questions of Law:-
      "(A) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case
           the decree of the learned lower court could be sustained
           as it erred in law in decreeing the suit on the ground U/S
           12(1)(f) M.P. Accommodation Control Act by brushing
           aside the admissions of P.W.1 and P.W.3 that 4 shops
           are lying vacant in the same house where disputed
           premises are situated and she has neither pleaded nor
           proved about their unsuitability which is running
           contrary to Hon'ble Apex Court's Judgment reported as
           AIR 1981 SC 1711?
      (B) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case
           the decree of lower Court could be sustained as it erred
           in law in decreeing the suit on the ground U/S 12(1)(a)
           of M.P. Accommodation Control Act without
           establishment of landlord tenant relationship by the
           plaintiff as defendant has never paid any rent to plaintiff
           or her predecessor and without considering the
           admissions of the plaintiff that defendant is not tenant in
           disputed shop ?"
      (C) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case
           the decree of lower court could be sustained as it erred
           in law in in brushing the admissions of the plaintiff that
           the defendant is not tenant in the disputed shop in a reply
           filed by the plaintiff by holding that it was only mistake
           or typographical error on assumption, whereas the
           plaintiff has not clarified the alleged situation even after
  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                            Second Appeal No.1364/2021
                           (Harishankar Vs. Smt. Vimla Malviya)
                                          -2-

                      drawing her attention to the said admission ?"
             (D)      Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case
                      the decree of lower court could be sustained as it erred
                      in law in granting a decree U/S 12(1)(c) M.P.
                      Accommodation Control Act though the defendant has
                      challenged the derivative title ?"

             Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee

within seven working days. Notice be made returnable within ten weeks.

Counsel for the appellant prays for grant of interim stay in respect of IA.No.6909/2021, which is an application under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC.

Considering all the circumstances of the case, it is directed that till the next date of hearing, the operation and execution of the impugned judgment and decree dated 31/08/2021 passed by II Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No.32/2014 as well as judgment and decree dated 27/08/2014 passed by III Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.46- A/2012 shall remains stayed.

List the matter after ten weeks. Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej

Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2022.04.28 17:39:49 +05'30'