Dayal Singh vs Ashok Lalwani
2023 Latest Caselaw 2320 MP

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

                                                      ON THE 09th OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                                       SECOND APPEAL No.382 OF 2021

                          BETWEEN:-

                          1.        DAYAL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI
                                    LAXMANDAS, AGED ABOUT 65
                                    YEARS, R/O DOCTOR MANGATRAM
                                    MARKET, HANUMANGANJ WARD,
                                    KATNI    TEHSIL  AND DISTRICT
                                    KATNI, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                  .....APPELLANT

                          (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH GULATEE-ADVOCATE)

                          AND

                          1.        ASHOK    LALWANI,   S/O   SHRI
                                    MANGATRAM     LALWANI,   AGED
                                    ABOUT   66  YEARS,   R/O   1605
                                    APARTMENT    RTO   CIVIL  LINE
                                    JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI ASHOK LALWANI-ADVOCATE)
                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                          following:

                                                             ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant/tenant

challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2021 passed by 3 rd Additional

District Judge, Katni in RCA No.117/2018 affirming the judgment and decree

dated 01.08.2018 passed by 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge,

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/10/2023 3:01:25 PM Class-II Katni, in Civil Suit no.44A/2015 whereby suit filed by the respondent/

plaintiff/landlord for eviction of suit shop on the ground under Section 12(1)(f)

of the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") has been de-

creed holding that the plaintiff is in bonafide need of the suit shop and there is

no other alternative accommodation available with the plaintiff.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant submits that learned Courts be-

low have not considered the alternative accommodations available with the

plaintiff. He submits that adjacent to the disputed shop there were other six

shops, out of which four shops have been sold by the respondent during pen-

dency of the present suit, therefore, it can very well be said that the respondent

has no bonafide need to start Advocate office at Katni. Further the respondent is

already engaged in the Advocate profession at Jabalpur and he is not required

the suit accommodation at Katni also.

3. He further submits that there is one other alternative accommodation

available on first floor of another building, which was vacated by State Bank of

India, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent

landlord has bonafide requirement to start the Advocate office at Katni.

4. The respondent/landlord is present in person and supports the impugned

judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/10/2023 3:01:25 PM

6. Learned Courts below after having considered entire material available on

record have come to conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff is in bonafide need

of the suit accommodation for starting his office at Katni also and there is no al-

ternative accommodation available with the respondent to start the office at

Katni.

7. In the case of Kishore Singh Vs. Satish Kumar Singhvi 2017(3) 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 ques-

tion 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.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays that he may be

granted one year time to vacate the tenanted premises/suit shop, which has not

been opposed by the respondent.

9. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for granting time to

vacate the tenanted premises/shop, in the interest of justice and looking to the

period and nature of tenancy, about one year time for vacating the tenanted

premises is granted on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant/defendant shall vacate the suit shop on or before 31.01.2024.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/10/2023 3:01:25 PM

(ii) The appellant/defendant 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 the learned Courts below.

(iii) The appellant /defendant shall not part with the suit shop to anybody and

shall not change nature of the suit shop.

(iv) The appellant/defendant shall furnish an undertaking with regard to the

aforesaid conditions within a period of three weeks before the learned Court be-

low/Executing Court.

(v) If the appellant/defendant fails to comply with any of the aforesaid condi-

tions, the respondent/plaintiff shall be free to execute the decree forthwith.

(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellant/defendant does not vacate the

suit shop on or before 31.01.2024 and creates any obstruction, he shall be liable to

pay mesne profits of Rs.500/- per day, so also contempt of order of this Court.

10. With the aforesaid observation, this second appeal is hereby dismissed

and disposed off. No order as to costs.

11. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE [email protected]

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/10/2023 3:01:25 PM