Rajesh Kumar vs Kunjilal
2022 Latest Caselaw 12157 MP

                                                      1
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                                          ON THE 13th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                        SECOND APPEAL No. 65 of 2021

                            BETWEEN:-
                            RAJESH KUMAR S/O KISHORE RAJ DARBANI,
                            AGED   ABOUT   50   YEARS, R/O SHREE
                            GARMENTS,   GAYATRI   MANDIR   ROAD,
                            INFRONT OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....APPELLANT
                            (BY SHRI SAMEER ANANT ATHAWALE, ADVOCATE)

                            AND
                            KUNJILAL S/O HEERALAL, AGED ABOUT 68
                            YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O PRATAP
                            MARG, NUTAN SCHOOL ROAD, NEEMUCH
                            CENT, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NEEMUCH
                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT
                            (BY SHRI VEER K JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ADARSH
                            JAIN, ADVOCATE )

                          This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
              following:
                                                     JUDGMENT

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, final argument heard. 2 . This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 45/2019 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Kunjilal) whereby judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 passed in RCSA No. 680/2017 (Kunjilal Vs. Rajesh Kumar) against the appellant/defendant on the Signature Not Verified ground of 12(1)(F) of MP Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA as "Act") has been affirmed and appellant/defendant has been ordered to hand Signing time: 16-Sep-22 5:09:26 PM

over the vacant possession of the suit shop to respondent/plaintiff. He is also directed to pay the arrears of rent with a rate of Rs. 1500/- per month along with mesne profit from 25.09.2017 till the handing over the vacant possession of the suit shop.

3. Learned counsel for the parties are heard at length.

4. On examination of the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 passed in RCS No. 680/2017 (Kunjilal Vs. Rajesh Kumar), it is apparent that suit had b een decreed on the ground of bona fide requirement of suit shop and defendant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent/plaintiff. Against said judgment and decree, appellant/defendant

had preferred an appeal before the Court of District Judge. Appeal was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Second Civil Judge- Class 1, Neemuch was affirmed.

5. I have gone through the evidence of the Kunjilal (PW-1), Mukesh (PW-2) and also the evidence of Rajesh Kumar (DW-1). Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that respondent/plaintiff bona fidely requires suit shop for dry cleaning business of his son Mukesh (PW-2). Findings have been recorded after due appreciation of the evidence of parties. Therefore, no fault is visible in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Hence, this Court finds no substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant. Therefore, concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. Consequently, judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are affirmed. Hence, this second appeal preferred by the appellant/tenant being shorn of Signature Not Verified merit is hereby dismissed.

Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 16-Sep-22 5:09:26 PM

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant has submitted that nine

month's time be granted to the appellant/tenant to vacate the suit shop. It is assured by the learned counsel for the appellant/tenant that after completion of period of nine months from today appellant/tenant shall hand over the possession of the suit shop in a peaceful manner to the respondent/landlord. It is also submitted that in case appellant/tenant fails to comply with the oral undertaking given before this Court, respondent/landlord shall be at liberty to get decree executed by adopting process of law. It is also submitted that in the meantime, appellant/tenant shall continue to deposit the monthly rent before the trial Court as is being deposited by him in compliance of the judgment and decree passed by Courts below.

7. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, nine months time is granted to the appellant/tenant to hand over the vacant possession of suit shop to respondent/plaintiff. It is made clear that appellant/tenant shall peacefully hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to respondent/plaintiff after completion of the period of nine months from today i.e. 13.09.2022.

8. In the meantime, he shall continue to pay/deposit the monthly rent of the suit shop before the trial Court as is being deposited by him till this day. In case of any failure on the part of the appellant/tenant to hand over the vacant possession of suit shop, respondent/landlord shall be at liberty to get execute

the decree passed by Courts below. Appellant/defendant shall bear cost throughout.

9. Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 16-Sep-22 5:09:26 PM (DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)

JUDGE L.R.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH RANA Signing time: 16-Sep-22 5:09:26 PM