Kesar Bai (Dead) Through Legal Heirs ... vs Narmada Prasad Lodhi
2023 Latest Caselaw 20714 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kesar Bai (Dead) Through Legal Heirs ... vs Narmada Prasad Lodhi on 7 December, 2023

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

                                                         1
                             IN   THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                            ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                            SECOND APPEAL No. 2475 of 2023

                            BETWEEN:-
                            1.    KESAR BAI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS
                            1(A). SMT. SHUSHILA YADAV D/O NOT MENTION,
                                  AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O VEHICLE MOD, AZAD
                                  NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            1(B). SMT LEELA YADAV W/O NOT MENTION R/O
                                  GORAKPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            1(C). SMT MONI YADAV W/O NOT MENTION, AGED
                                  ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O DISTRICT SIGHAI (UTTAR
                                  PRADESH)

                            1(D). BALLU YADAV S/O LATE LAXMI PRASAD, AGED
                                  ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO 279/312, CHHOTI
                                  OMTI   BELBAG,     POLICE  LINE     DISTRICT
                                  JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            1(E). CHOTU YADAV S/O LATE LAXMI PRASAD YADAV
                                  R/O HOUSE NO 279/312, CHHOTI OMTI BELBAG,
                                  POLICE LINE DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                  PRADESH)

                            1(F). GEETA BAI W/O LATE LAXMI PRASAD, AGED
                                  ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO 279/312, CHHOTI
                                  OMTI   BELBAG,     POLICE  LINE     DISTRICT
                                  JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            1(G) PAPPU YADAV S/O LATE LAXMI PRASAD, AGED
                                 ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO 279/312, CHHOTI
                                 OMTI   BELBAG,     POLICE  LINE     DISTRICT
                                 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....APPELLANT
                            (BY SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

                            AND
                            NARMADA PRASAD LODHI S/O NANHE LAL LODHI,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 12/8/2023
5:38:20 PM
                                                        2
                            AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O CHHOTI KHALASI LINE,
                            DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENT
                            (NONE)

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

This second appeal has been preferred by appellants/defendants/tenants challenging the judgment & decree dtd.14.07.2023 passed by 28th District Judge, Jabalpur in RCA No.88/16 affirming the judgment & decree dtd. 24.02.2016 passed by 6th Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.48A/13

whereby learned Courts have decreed the respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction on the grounds under Section 12(1)(c) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961( in short "the Act").

2. By the impugned judgment & decree, learned Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent/plaintiff is in need of the suit accommodation for his residence and despite making payment of rent the defendants have denied relationship of landlord and tenant without any basis, therefore, they have been held liable to be evicted from the premises in question.

3. In the case of Kishore Singh vs. Satish Kumar Singhvi 2017(3) JLJ 375 a coordinate Bench of this 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. 4 . After arguments at length and realising the settled legal position that the findings recorded concurrently by learned Courts below on the question of

bonafide requirement, do not raise any substantial question of law, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants/tenants prays for one year's time to vacate the tenanted premises.

5 . In view of the aforesaid prayer, declining interference in the impugned judgment & decree passed by Courts below and looking to the nature and period of tenancy, this Court deems fit to grant time for vacating the tenanted premises upto 30.11.2024 on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellants/defendants shall vacate the tenanted premises on or before 30.11.2024.

(ii) The appellants/defendants shall regularly pay rent to the respondent/landlord and shall also clear all the dues, if any, including the costs of the litigation, if any, imposed by Courts below.

(iii) The appellants/defendants shall not part with the tenanted premises to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.

(iv) The appellants/defendants shall furnish an undertaking with regard to the aforesaid conditions within a period of three weeks before the learned Court below/Executing Court.

(v) If the appellants/defendants fail to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent/plaintiff shall be free to execute the decree forthwith.

(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellants/defendants do not vacate the tenanted premises on or before 30.11.2024 and create any obstruction, they shall be liable to pay mesne profits of Rs.500/- per day, so also contempt of order of this Court.

(vii) It is made clear that the defendants/appellants shall not be entitled for further extension of time after 30.11.2024.

6. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is hereby disposed off. No order as to costs.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE KPS