Mohd. Khaleel vs Krishnakant Purwar
2023 Latest Caselaw 5960 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5960 MP
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mohd. Khaleel vs Krishnakant Purwar on 12 April, 2023

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

1 S.A. No.599 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2023

SECOND APPEAL NO.599 of 2020

BETWEEN:-
1. MOHD. KHALEEL S/O LATE HAJI MOHAMAD
TAHIR SAHADAT, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS ISHWARIPURA
WARD MEET MARKET GROUND TEH. KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. MOHAMD SHAKEEL S/O LATE HAJI MOHAMD
TAHIR SAHADAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS ISHWARIPURA
WARD MEET MARKET GROUND TEH. KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS

(SHRI SIDDHARTH GULATEE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. KRISHNAKANT PURWAR S/O BABULAL
PURWAR ZALLAPPA DEVI WARD PURANI
BASTI TEH. AND DIST. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)

2. MOHAMD AKEEL S/O LATE HAJI MOHAMD
TAHIR SAHADAR ISHWARIPURA WARD MEET
MARKET GROUND TEH. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)

3. JIYAUDDIN MUSALMAN S/O NOT KNOWN A
TO Z C.D CENTRE MAIN ROAD SUBHASH
CHOWK (MADHYA PRADESH)
2 S.A. No.599 of 2020

.....RESPONDENTS

...................................................................................................................................................................

This appeal coming on for admission this day, Court passed the
following:
ORDER

This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendant no. 4 & 2/tenants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 31.01.2020 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Katni in Civil Appeal No.76/2017 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 27.04.2017 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of 1 st Civil Judge Class-I, Katni in Civil Suit No. 1400219/09 whereby learned Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction only on the ground under Section 12(1)

(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), which was filed on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a)(b)(c) & (f) of the Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants /defendant no. 4 & 2/tenants submits that learned Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement despite availability of alternative accommodation with the plaintiff and the findings recorded by learned Courts below in respect of the non availability of suitable alternative accommodation being perverse, the second appeal deserves to be admitted.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants /defendant no. 4 & 2/tenants and perused the record.

4. Upon perusal of the entire record, it is clear that the suit has been decreed only on the ground of bonafide requirement of the shop in question under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act and while deciding the issue No. 3(a) & (b), learned trial Court has considered the question of bonafide requirement and non availability of alternative accommodation in detail and held that the plaintiff is in need of the suit shop for starting readymade clothe business, which has been affirmed by first appellate Court. Upon perusal of judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below, there is no material available on record to hold contrary.

5. In the case of Kishore Singh Vs. Satish Kumar Singhvi 2017(3) JLJ 375 coordinate bench this of Court has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary and Company AIR 2000 SC 534, and held that the findings recorded on the question of bonafide requirement do not give rise to any substantial question of law. As such, there does not appear any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal.

6. At this stage learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendant no. 4 & 2/tenants submits that the appellants are ready to vacate the tenanted premises in question and they may be granted one year time for the said purpose.

7. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the appellants for granting time to vacate the tenanted premises, in the interest of justice, one year's time for vacating the tenanted premises is granted on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellants/defendant no. 4 & 2/tenants shall vacate the tenanted

premises on or before 31.03.2024.

(ii) The appellants/defendant no. 4 & 2/tenants shall regularly pay rent to

the respondent/landlord and shall also clear all the dues, if any, including

the cost of the litigation, if any, imposed by the learned Courts below.

(iii) The appellants/defendant no. 4 & 2/tenants shall not part with the

tenanted premises to anybody and shall not change nature of the

accommodation.

(iv) The appellants/defendant no. 4 & 2/tenants shall furnish an

undertaking with regard to the aforesaid conditions within a period of

three weeks before the learned executing Court.

(v) If the appellants/defendant 4 & 2/tenants fail to comply with any of