Govind Prasad Kesharwani vs Ashutosh Gupta
2023 Latest Caselaw 2764 MP

                                                               1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                             ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 1643 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          GOVIND PRASAD KESHARWANI S/O LATE RAMNATH
                          KESHARWANI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          BUSINESS, R/O SATNA BUILDING SHYAM TALKIES
                          ROAD JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI R.P. KHARE-ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          ASHUTOSH GUPTA S/O BHANU PRAKASH GUPTA, AGED
                          ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O 773 NEAR KAMANIA GATE
                          JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT


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

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant/tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2022 passed by III District Judge, Jabalpur in RCA No.203/2019 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019 passed by XIII Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in civil suit No.313- A/2018, whereby suit for eviction filed by respondent on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a)&(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') has been decreed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was not liable to pay Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 2/16/2023 5:38:17 PM

the standard rent fixed by the RCA vide order dated 31.10.2017, although affirmed by VIII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in M.A. No.148-A/2018 vide final order dated 13.07.2018. By placing reliance on the decision in the case of Gaurishankar Gour and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. 1998(1) MPLJ SN (2), he submits that in view of agreed rent of Rs.400/- the defendant could not have been compelled to deposit standard rent fixed by the RCA, resultantly, the order striking out the defence of the defendant/tenant is not sustainable. Learned counsel submits that because his right of defence was wrongly struck out, therefore, the decree of eviction passed on the grounds under section 12(1)(a)&(f) of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, learned

counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal be admitted.

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

4. Due to non deposit of up to date rent, the learned court vide its interim order dated 05.01.2019 directed the defendant to pay legally recoverable rent by the next date of listing, but upon failure of the defendant to deposit the requisite rent, the learned court vide order dated 25.01.2019 struck out the defence of the defendant. Record does not show that the defendant has paid or deposited the requisite rent after service of notice of demand (Ex.P-6) or within requisite period of one month after service of notice of summons.

5. Learned court below after recording evidence of the plaintiff has found that the defendant is in arrears of rent and the plaintiff is in need of the suit shop (admeasuring 52 sqft.) for starting office of his Brick's factory. Learned courts below have upon due consideration of the evidence decreed the suit on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a)&(f) of the Act, therefore, in my considered opinion the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 2/16/2023 5:38:17 PM

6. In the case of Kishore Singh Vs. Satish Kumar Singhvi 2017(3) JLJ 375 this Court has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case o f 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. As such, there does not appear any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal.

7. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant/tenant submits that appellant is 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.

8. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the appellant 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 appellant/tenant shall vacate the tenanted shop/ accommodation on or before 31.01.2024.

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

( iii) T h e appellant/tenant shall not part with the tenanted shop/ accommodation to anybody and shall not change nature of the accommodation.

(iv) The appellant/tenant shall furnish an undertaking with regard to the aforesaid conditions within a period of three weeks before the learned executing Court.

( v ) If the appellant/tenant fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent/landlord shall be free to execute the decree of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 2/16/2023 5:38:17 PM

eviction forthwith.

(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellant/tenant does not vacate the tenanted shop/accommodation on or before 31.01.2024 and creates any obstruction, he shall be liable to pay mesne profit of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred) per day, so also contempt of order of this Court.

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

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE ss

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 2/16/2023 5:38:17 PM