Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok vs Vishnu Kishor Jaiswal Dead ... on 9 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 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 1768 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. ASHOK S/O BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
TALAB MOHALLA, ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHYAM SUNDAR S/O SHRI BABULAL, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O TALAB MOHALLA ITARSI
TAHSIL ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PURUSHOTTAM S/O SHRI BABULAL, AGED ABOUT
86 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
TALAB MOHALLA ITARSI TAHSIL ITARSI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KAMLABAI W/O SHRI BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 46
YEAR S, R/O TALAB MOHALLA ITARSI TAHSIL
ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SIDDARTH GULATEE-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL DEAD THROUGH L.RS.
SMT.UMA W/O LATE VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OLD ITARSI
DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GUDDU S/O LATE SHRI VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O OLD ITARSI DISTT
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SACHIN S/O LATE SHRI VISHNU KISHOR
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O OLD
ITARSI DISTT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SHRIDDHA S/O LATE SHRI VISHNU KISHOR
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O OLD
ITARSI DISTT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/10/2023
11:43:51 AM
2
PRADESH)
5. DIVYA S/O LATE SHRI VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O OLD ITARSI DISTT
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2021 passed by 1st District
Judge, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad in civil appeal no.08/2015 confirming the
judgment and decree dated 28.02.2015 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Itarsi,
District Hoshangabad in civil suit no.30A/2011, whereby learned Courts below
have decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs/landlord on the ground
under Section 12(1)(a),(e)&(h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation
Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
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 ground of 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/10/2023
11:43:51 AM
the plaintiffs/respondents are in need of the suit accommodation for residential
purpose after making addition alteration in the existing building.
4. 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
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/10/2023
11:43:51 AM
conditions, the respondents/plaintiffs 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 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: 2/10/2023
11:43:51 AM
