Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanhaiyalal Gupta vs Smt. Pushpa Jain on 8 February, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 1965 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. KANHAIYALAL GUPTA S/O DOODHNATH GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PROP
ASHISH KIRANA STORE MAIN ROAD
GORAKHPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANTOSH GUPTA S/O SHRI KANHAIYALAL GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
JOB R/O 1025, NEAR KHERMAI MANDIR,
GORAKHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SHAILENDRA VERMA-ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SMT. PUSHPA JAIN W/O LATE JINENDRA JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O 681 JAWAHARGANJ
JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHAILENDRA JAIN S/O LATE JINENDRA JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O 681 JAWAHARGANJ
JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. YOGENDRA JAIN S/O LATE JINENDRA JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O 681 JAWAHARGANJ
JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. APUL JAIN S/O LATE JINENDRA JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O 681 JAWAHARGANJ
JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R.P. KHARE-ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/11/2023
6:00:18 PM
2
ORDER
T h i s second appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/defendants/tenants challenging the judgment and decree dated
04.08.2022 passed by Principal District Judge, Jabalpur in regular Civil Appeal
no.13/2022 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2021 passed by 8th
Civil Judge Senior Division, Jabalpur in Civil Suit no.15-A/2013, whereby suit
filed by the respondents/landlord on the grounds available under Section 12(1)
(a),(c),(d)&(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in
short "the Act") has been decreed on all the grounds.
2 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Courts
below have erred in decreeing the suit on the ground of arrears of rent as well as
on the other grounds including bonafide requirement of respondents, whereas
there were only 2-3 defaults in depositing the rent during trial and the
plaintiffs/respondents are not in need of the suit accommodation and there is
other alternative accommodation available with the
respondents/plaintiffs/landlord. Accordingly, he prays for admission of the
second appeal.
3. Learned both the Courts below on the basis of entire material available
on record have found that the appellants/defendants are in arrears of rent and
they have not complied the provisions contained in Section 13(1) of the Act and
the plaintiffs/respondents are in need of the suit accommodation for non
residential purpose after making addition alteration in the existing building.
Further, it has been held that the defendants have denied title of the plaintiffs
and have kept the shop closed for a continuous period of six months just
preceding the date of suit.
Signature Not Verified
4. In the case of Kishore Singh Vs. Satish Kumar Singhvi 2017(3)
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/11/2023
6:00:18 PM
JLJ 375 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 bona fide 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.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays that the appellants
may be granted one year time to vacate the tenanted premises.
6. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the appellants for granting time
to vacate the tenanted premises, in the interest of justice and looking to the
period and nature of tenancy, about one year time for vacating the tenanted
premises/suit shop is granted on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellants/defendants shall vacate the tenanted premises on or
before 31.01.2024.
(ii) The appellants/defendants shall regularly pay rent to the
respondents/landlord and shall also clear all the dues, if any, including the
costs of the litigation, if any, imposed by the learned 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 respondents/plaintiffs shall be free to execute the decree
forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellants/defendants do not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/11/2023
6:00:18 PM
vacate the tenanted premises on or before 31.01.2024 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.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this second appeal is hereby dismissed
and disposed off. No order as to costs.
8. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/11/2023
6:00:18 PM
