Rajendra Prasad Soni vs Rajendra Kumar Verma
2023 Latest Caselaw 9985 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9985 MP
Judgement Date : 3 July, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajendra Prasad Soni vs Rajendra Kumar Verma on 3 July, 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 3 rd OF JULY, 2023
                                            SECOND APPEAL No. 1050 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    RAJENDRA PRASAD SONI S/O SHRI RAMSNEHI,
                               AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JEWELRY
                               MAKER

                         2.    SMT. KIRAN SONI S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD SONI,
                               AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BANGLE
                               SELLERS
                               BOTH ARE R/O H.NO. 1671, KOTWALI WARD
                               JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPELLANTS
                         (BY SHRI K.K. KUSHWAHA, ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA W/O SHRI D.N.VERMA,
                         AGED      ABOUT     78     YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         AGRICULTURIST, R/O H.NO. 1619 KOTWALI WARD
                         JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                         (BY SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH, ADVOCATE)

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

T h i s second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants/tenants challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2023 passed by 15th District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.228/2022, affirming/modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2022 passed by 13th Civil Judge Junior Division, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.75-A/2017, Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 7/4/2023 10:27:12 AM

whereby suit for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a)(c)(e)(g) & (o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

2. In the suit for eviction filed on the several grounds available under Section 12(1) of the Act, the learned trial Court after due consideration of the evidence found that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence and there is no other alternative accommodation available in the township of Jabalpur, which is affirmed by learned first appellate Court. As such, there is concurrent finding on the point of bona fide requirement by learned two Courts below.

3. In addition to the aforesaid ground of bonafide requirement, learned Courts below have also decreed the suit on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a)(c)(g) & (o) of the Act.

4. 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 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 for withdrawal of this second appeal with the submission that they may be granted one year time to vacate the suit premises, which has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.

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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 7/4/2023 10:27:12 AM

period and nature of tenancy, one year time for vacating the tenanted premises is granted on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellants/defendants shall vacate the suit premises on or before 30.06.2024.

(ii) The appellants/defendants 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 appellants/defendants shall not part with the suit premises to anybody and shall not change nature of the suit premises.

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

(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellants/defendants do no t vacate the suit premises on or before 30.06.2024 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.