Smt. Vishnu Bai vs Smt. Poonam Ruthiya
2022 Latest Caselaw 8634 MP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
                                   BEFORE

                 SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

                          ON THE 29th JUNE, 2022

                   SECOND APPEAL NO. 859 of 2021



BETWEEN:-

1.   SMT. VISHNU BAI, W/O LATE
     SHRI   GOWERDHAN    YADAV,
     AGED    ABOUT   77  YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER.
2.   KAILASH YADAV, S/O LATE SHRI
     GOWERDHAN YADAV , AGED
     ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     SHOPKEEPER,
     (BOTH   R/O.           KOLIPURA
     BADHAIYAKHERA,           SEHORE
     DISTT.  SEHORE          (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
3.   DAULATRAM YADAV, S/O LATE
     SHRI GOWERDHAN YADAV ,
     AGED     ABOUT   50  YEARS,
     OCCUPATION:     SHOPKEEPER,
     R/O. 111 PARAS GULAB VATIKA
     IN FRONT OF CHURCH GROUND
     INDORE BHOPAL ROAD SEHORE
     (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                   ........APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI D.K. TRIPATHI-ADVOCATE)
 AND

1.    SMT. POONAM RUTHIYA, W/O LATE SHRI
      VINOD RUTHIYA , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2.    KAPIL AGRAWAL, S/O LATE SHRI VINOD
      KUMAR RUTIYA , AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
      (BOTH R/O. BADA BAZAAR CHHAVNI,
      SEHORE TAH DISTT. SEHORE MP
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       ........RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH GULATEE-ADVOCATE)


      This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

                                      ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/tenants against the

judgment and decree dated 13/08/2019 passed by District Judge, Sehore in Civil

Appeal No.3(A)/2019, whereby judgment and decree dated 27/11/2018 passed by

learned First Civil Judge Class-II, Sehore has been affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while passing the judgment

and decree of eviction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, learned Court below

has reserved the rights of the appellants/defendants of re-entry upon construction

of shopping complex.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is ready to vacate the

premises upon start of construction of shopping complex and he is ready to pay enhanced rent of Rs.3,500/- p.m. to the respondents/landlords. Learned Court

below has granted the decree as follows:

(1) ;g fd [email protected] izfroknhx.k dh vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkyksP; fu.kZ; ,oa t;i= iq"V djrs gq, ,slk vfrfjDr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd fookfnr LFky ij 'kkWfiax dkEiysDl dk fuekZ.k gksus ij /kkjk 18 ¼2½ e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr ekufp= iz- ih-11 esa nf'kZr fdlh ,d nqdku ij [email protected] izfroknhx.k dk /kkjk 18 ¼2½ dh 'krZ ds vuqlkj fu;r frfFk ;k mlds iwoZ vkf/kiR; nsus ij iqu% izos'k dk vf/kdkj gksxk A ¼2½ ;g fd ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, mHk; i{k vihy dk O;; viuk&viuk ogu djsaxs A vf/koDrk 'kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij vFkok lwph vuqlkj tks Hkh de gks] yxk;k tkosA

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are going

to raise construction of the shopping complex w.e.f. 01/11/2022 and accordingly,

he submits that the appellants may be given time to vacate the premises by

26/10/2022. In view of the aforesaid concession given by the learned counsel for

the respondents, it is directed that the appellants shall vacate the premises on or

before 26/10/2022 and will pay the enhanced rent @ Rs.3,500/- to the respondents

w.e.f. 01/07/2022.

5. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to submit undertaking to the effect

that they will vacate the premises on or before 26/10/2022 and will continue to pay

enhanced rent @ Rs.3,500/- p.m. w.e.f. 01/07/2022 to the respondents and they

will not part with the possession to anybody. Similarly, the respondents are also

directed to comply the decree passed by learned Courts below and they are

expected to start construction from 01/11/2022 positively which is proposed to be

completed upto end of the year 2024.

6. If the appellants/tenants do not submit the undertaking as mentioned

aforesaid within a period of 3 weeks and do not vacate the premises on or before

26/10/2022, the respondents shall be at liberty to get vacated the premises even

prior to the date fixed by this Court and the appellants shall also be liable for

contempt of order of this Court and they will not be entitled for the benefit already

granted by the learned Court below with regard to the re-entry.

7. It is made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled for further extension

of time after 26/10/2022.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE

SS

Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU Date: 2022.07.02 11:25:25 +05'30'