Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manjulata Bhansali (Jain ) vs Naresh Kumar Alias Nihal Chand ... on 16 September, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
REVIEW PETITION No. 988 of 2022
Between:-
SMT. MANJULATA BHANSALI (JAIN )
W/O RAJESH BHANSALI D/O LATE
SHRI JAI CHAND LAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUISNESS R/O 6/102, RIVERA TOWER,
NEAR SWAMI NARAYAN MANDIR
ADAJANPURA SURAT (GUJARAT)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA CHANDIL -ADVOCATE)
AND
NARESH KUMAR ALIAS NIHAL
CHAND CHHAJED S/O LATE JAL
1. CHANDRA LAL R/O CHHAJED
BUILDING DAHI MANDI LASHKAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
ABHINANDAN KUMAR CHHAJED S/O
LATE SHRI JAI CHANDRA LAL R/O
2. CHHAJED BUILDING, DAHI MANDI,
LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SMT. VIJAYA DEVI NAHATA W/O
SHRI MAANIK CHANDRA R/O 6,
3.
KARODIMAL COLONY, BHIWANI
HARYANA (HARYANA)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 19-09-2022
05:52:20 PM
2
DHANESH CHHAJED S/O LATE SHRI
JAI CHANRDA LAL R/O CHHAJED
4.
BUILDING DAHI MANDI LASHKAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. TARA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI
SHUBHAKARAN JAIN R/O NAAG
5. DEVTA MANDIR ROAD, CHHATRI
MANDI LASHKAR GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
RAVINDRA JAIN S/O LATE SHRI
SHUBHKARAN JAIN R/O NAAG
6. DEVTA MANDIR ROAD, CHHATRI
MANDIR LASHKAR GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. MADHU JAIN W/O SHIR NIRMAL
KUMAR R/O NAAG DEVTA MANDIR
7
ROAD, CHHATRI MANDIR LASHKAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. ABHILASHA JAIN W/O SHRI
HARISH CHANDRA R/O NAAG DEVTA
8 MANDIR ROAD, CHHATRI MANDIR
LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SMT. NISHA JAIN W/O SHRI
SURENDRA R/O NAAG DEVTA
9 MANDIR ROAD, CHHATRI MANDIR
LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANAND VINOD BHARDWAJ- ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2.
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 19-09-2022
05:52:20 PM
3
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking review of the order
dated 23.8.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Revision
No.689/2018.
Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Pana Devi filed an
application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior,
under Section 23(a)(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act,
1961 for vacating the premises on the ground of need of her son.
The RCA after evidence of the parties, allowed the application of
Pana Devi and directed Subhkaran to handover the possession of
the suit shop to Smt. Pana Devi within two months. Thereafter
L.Rs. of Subhkaran did not vacate the premises. Therefore, L.Rs.
of Pana Devi submitted an application for execution before the
RCA. During execution proceeding, suit shop was vacated from
the tenant, but there was no unanimity amongst the L.Rs. of Pana
Devi to handover the suit shop to any one of them and suit for
partition was pending. Petitioner filed an application before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 19-09-2022
05:52:20 PM
RCA to handover the key of the suit shop in police custody till
conclusion of the suit for partition. The RCA allowing the said
application ordered to give the key of the suit shop to SHO of the
police Station. Against this order of the RCA, respondents No.1
& 2- Naresh Kumar and Abhinandan Kumar filed a civil revision
before this Court. This Court vide impugned order found that
initially Pana Devi filed the application before the RCA for
vacating the suit shop on the need of her son- Abhinandan
Kumar, and therefore, directed the RCA to handover the key of
the suit shop to respondents No.1 & 2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that after death of Pana Bai since there is no unanimity amongst
the heirs of Pana Bai to give possession of the suit shop to any
one of them, and suit for partition is pending amongst them,
therefore, in such circumstances, order passed by this Court in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 19-09-2022
05:52:20 PM
civil revision directing RCA to handover the key to respondents
No.1 & 2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
This Court has already in the order under review has
observed that this is not a matter of succession and it is a matter
of Accommodation Control Act which originated on the
application of Pana Bai for vacating the suit shop on the need of
her son Abhinandan.
The Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Das Gupta vs.
State of U.P. & Anr., (1996) 5 SCC 728 relied on by the
petitioner has held as under :-
"It is well settled legal position that an
executing Court cannot travel beyond the order
or decree under execution. It gets jurisdiction
only to execute the order in accordance with
the procedure laid down under Order 21,
CPC...."
The Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, vide order dated
4th February, 2009 passed in Case No.11/2002-03/90-7 in the
operating para has held that applicant- Smt. Panadevi has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 19-09-2022
05:52:20 PM
succeeded in proving her case for vacating the suit shop for the
need of her son for his business and allowed the application
under Order 23(A) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and
directed the respondent to vacate the suit shop within two
months. As such, it is clear that the order passed by this Court is
in accordance with the said finding of the Apex Court because
said judgment and decree was passed by the RCA in favour of
Panabai on the ground of bonafide need of her son Abhinandan.
In such circumstances, there is no error apparent on the
face of record in the direction of this Court to RCA to handover
the key of the suit shop to respondents No.1 & 2. This review
petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
Judge
ms/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 19-09-2022
05:52:20 PM
