Sabir Hussain vs Dr. S.K.Dubey
2023 Latest Caselaw 5461 MP

                                  1                   S.A. No.951/2017


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                ON THE 3rd OF APRIL, 2023
              SECOND APPEAL No. 951 of 2017
BETWEEN:-

1.    SABIR HUSSAIN S/O SHRI AKHTAR
      HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O
      H.NO. 106/3 WELCOME FOOT HOUSE,
      CHIKLOAD    ROAD,  JEHANGIRABAD,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.    SAKINA BI W/O SHRI ANWAR, AGED
      ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 106/03
      WELCOME FOOT HOUSE, CHIKLOAD
      ROAD,   JEHANGIRABAD,   BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                      .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK SINGH- ADVOCATE)

AND

DR. K.S.DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O
SHRI KANTISWAROOP DUBEY, R/O H.NO.
106/3, NEAR KRISHNA HOSPITAL, CHIKLOAD
ROAD, JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)



                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR RAGHUWANSHI- ADVOCATE)
      This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:
                                     2                    S.A. No.951/2017


                                 JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2017 passed by 14th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No. 72/2016 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal, District Bhopal in Civil Suit No.571-A/2013 by which a decree for eviction has been passed under Section 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the defendants are the tenant in the shop situated in Ambika Bhawan, Chiklod Road Jahangirabad, Bhopal, admeasuring 10x30 Sq.ft. which is having one shutter towards the road and 3 shutters towards the inside of the building. On the eastern side of the shop there is a common corridor whereas on the western side there is a plot number 106/02. On the northern side the other shops of the same building are situated whereas on the southern side Chiklod Road is situated. The tenancy is monthly. The property was purchased by the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 27.01.2012 from its original owner. The information regarding alienation of the property was given to the defendants and the defendants were also directed to pay the rent to the plaintiff w.e.f. February, 2012. The defendants were immediately informed about the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff and were requested to vacate the premises within one year. In spite of the information given by the plaintiff, the defendants did not pay rent to the plaintiff w.e.f. February, 2012. A notice was also sent by the plaintiff through his advocate which

was received by the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants paid the arrears of rent by treating the plaintiff as the owner. The monthly rent of the shop was Rs.2,550/- and liability to pay the electricity charges were on the defendants. On 28.01.2013, the plaintiff sent legal notice through his counsel which was received by the defendants. By the said notice, the plaintiff had terminated the tenancy of the defendants and the defendants were called upon to hand over the vacant possession of the property on 01st March, 2012 but the vacant possession was not handed over.

3. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has also taken action against the other tenants and after getting the entire premises vacated, he would expand his hospital and would start a homeopathic wing. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is a doctor and the entire ground floor which is in the possession of different tenants is required for expansion of hospital and establishment of homeopathic wing. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff does not have any alternative and suitable accommodation in the City of Bhopal. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is in bona fide need of the suit property for non-residential purposes. It was further pleaded that the cheque for payment of arrears of rent which was issued has also bounced and from 01.01.2013, the defendants have not paid the rent to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the defendant is also keeping his belonging in the common passage and also parks his vehicles in front of the main door and also instigates his employees and the customers to park their vehicles. The defendants and their employees also misbehave with the patient which come to the hospital as a result, inconvenience is being caused.

4. By way of amendment, it was further pleaded that the defendants

have wrongly alleged in his written statement that the plaintiff is running another hospital in the name of KIPS. In fact the complete name of the said Hospital is Krishna Institute of Paramedical Science and Technology which is being run by Om Shakit Education Society and thus, the suit was filed for eviction on the grounds mentioned in the plaint.

5. The defendants filed their written statement and denied that the suit shop is in the ownership of the plaintiff. The other plaint averments with regard to the information to the defendants regarding purchase of property, bona fide need for non residential purposes, creation of nuisance etc were denied. By way of amendment it was further pleaded by the defendants in the written statement that the plaintiff is running another hospital in the name of KIPS. It was also denied that the defendants have wrongly challenged the title of the plaintiff. In additional pleadings it was pleaded that the rent was being paid to Shri Subhash Chandra Bhalla and after the death of Subhash Chandra Bhalla, the rent is being paid to his wife Smt. Sushma Bhalla. It was further pleaded that in the sale deed dated 27.01.2012, there is no mention of the suit shop and also there is no mention that the shop is in possession of the tenant. It was further claimed that the plaintiff has not filed any document of his title in respect of the suit shop. It was further claimed that the plaintiff is trying to illegally take possession of the property belonging to Late Shri Subhash Chandra Bhalla in an illegal manner. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is in possession of another hospital in the name of KIPS situated at Ujjain Road, Jahangirabad which is alternative and suitable for catering the need of the plaintiff.

6. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence,

decreed the suit.

7. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

8. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below it is submitted by the appellants that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was a forged document and the suit shop is not a part of the sale deed (Ex.-P/1). It is further submitted that the plaintiff has an alternative accommodation in the City of Bhopal and two unused shops are also lying vacant in the same building and thus, it is claimed that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and proposed the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse?

2. Whether the decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide need being without cognant, grenainine, sincere and honest need can be said to brave been rightly passed?

3. Whether the decree of eviction on the ground u/s 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act can be granted in a suit where tenancy has been terminated or caused of action to evict has arisen within one year of purchase of house?"

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

10. According to the plaintiff, there are 14 shops in the suit premises. The sale deed is Ex.-P/1(C). In the map attached to the sale deed, 7 shops have been shown, apart from 3 labs and 5 godowns. Thus, in all

14 small separate accommodations have been shown in the plaint map. The reason for description of the 14 accommodations including shops, labs and godowns appears to be that in the sale deed the total area of building has been shown to be 2862 sq. ft. out of which 74.34 sq. meter situated on the ground floor is being used for commercial purposes, 85.50 sq.m. is being used as godown and 37.17 sq.m. is being used for semi commercial purposes (Pathology Lab), therefore, the description of 14 accommodations have been given in the suit shop including seven shops. Thus, it is incorrect on the part of the defendants/appellants that the suit shop was not shown in the sale deed.

11. So far as the availability of alternative accommodation in the City of Bhopal is concerned, the plaintiff has specifically stated that he has purchased the property for expansion of his hospital as well as for establishment of homeopathic wing. By no stretch of imagination, the expansion of hospital and establishment of homeopathic wing can be said that it is not bona fide requirement for non-residential purposes. The Courts cannot prevent the landlord from expanding his hospital.

12. Furthermore, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that another hospital KIPS is being run by Om Education Society. Thus, the Courts below did not commit any mistake by holding that not only the appellants had denied the title of the plaintiff but the plaintiff has also successfully pleaded and proved that he has no alternative and suitable accommodation in the City of Bhopal for starting his hospital and homeopathic wing. The nuisance in the form of denial of title has also been rightly found by the Courts below. It is well established principle of law that this Court in exercise of power under Section 100 of C.P.C. cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

13. As no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2017 passed by 14th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No. 72/2016 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal, District Bhopal in Civil Suit No.571-A/2013 are hereby affirmed.

14. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE ashish

ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE 2023.04.06 17:06:04 +05'30'