Badriprasad Agrawal vs Ravindra Kumar Masuraha
2023 Latest Caselaw 2590 MP

                                                     1
                           IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                         ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                         SECOND APPEAL No. 2856 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    BADRIPRASAD AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI
                                MUNNALAL AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: BUSINESS AZAD CHOWK GANESH
                                PRASAD MASURHA WARD, TEHSIL KATNI
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    PURUSHOOTAM AGRAWAL S/O SHRI BADRI
                                PRASAD AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O AZAD CHOWK
                                GANESH PRASAD MASURHA WARD, TEHSIL
                                KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    RAMJI AGRAWAL S/O SHRI BADRI PRASAD
                                AGRAWAL,   AGED    ABOUT  52  YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O AZAD CHOWK
                                GANESH PRASAD MASURHA WARD, TEHSIL
                                KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    BHARAT KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O SHRI BADRI
                                PRASAD AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O AZAD CHOWK
                                GANESH PRASAD MASURHA WARD, TEHSIL
                                KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    RAVINDRA KUMAR MASURAHA S/O SHRI
                                RAJARAM MASURAHA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: BUSINESS GANESH PRASAD
                                MASURAHA WARD, TEHSIL KATNI DISTRICT
                                KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    DEEPAK KUMAR MASURAHA S/O RAJARAM
                                MASURAHA,   AGED    ABOUT   57   YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O GANESH PRASAD
                                MASURHA WARD, TEHSIL KATNI (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/14/2023
5:32:29 PM
                                                              2
                                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 defendants/tenants challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022 passed by III Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Katni in Civil Appeal no.52/2018 affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2018 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class- I, Katni in RCS

no.1000064-A/2012, whereby in the suit filed for eviction on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a)&(f) of M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), decree of eviction on the ground under Section 12 (1)

(f) of the Act has been passed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs have several other alternative accommodations and there is one shop adjacent to the tenanted shop which has been alleged to be a godown and has been found so by learned Courts below but the plaintiffs can use that godown for starting his business. Accordingly he submits that learned Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit.

3. However, 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 bonafide requirement do not give rise to any

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/14/2023 5:32:29 PM

substantial question of law. As such, there does not appear any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal.

4. At this stage learned counsel for the appellants/tenants submits that appellants are ready to vacate the shop in question within a period of one year and he may be granted one year time for the said purpose.

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

(i) The appellants/tenants shall vacate the tenanted shop/ accommodation on or before 31.01.2024.

(ii) The appellants/tenants 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) T h e appellants/tenants shall not part with the tenanted shop/ accommodation to anybody and shall not change nature of the accommodation.

(iv) The appellants/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/tenants fail to comply with any of the aforesaid

conditions, the respondents/landlord shall be free to execute the decree of eviction forthwith.

(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellants/tenants do not vacate the rented shop/accommodation on or before 31.01.2024 and create any obstruction, they shall be liable to pay mesne profits of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred) per day, so also contempt of order of this Court. Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/14/2023 5:32:29 PM

6. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is disposed off.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE [email protected]

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 2/14/2023 5:32:29 PM