Jhaadulal vs Premkumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 16504 MP

                                                             1
                            IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                              SECOND APPEAL No. 777 of 2019

                           BETWEEN:-
                           JHAADULAL       (DEAD)     THROUGH        LEGAL
                           REPRESENTATIVES
                           A. SMT. KAUSHALYA SAHU, AGED 70 YEARS WD/O LATE
                           JHAADULAL
                           B. ANIL KUMAR SAHU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O
                           LATE JHAADULAL
                           C. RAJESH SAHU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE
                           JHAADULAL
                           D.   MANJU SAHU, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O LATE
                           JHAADULAL ALL R/O DIWANCHIPURA, TEHSIL AND
                           DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI KAUSTUBH SHANKAR JHA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           PREMKUMAR S/O RADHAKISHAN KABRA, AGED
                           ABOUT    74 YEARS, R/O MADHUVAN COLONY
                           CHHINDWARA, CHAKKAR ROAD CHHINDWARA,
                           TAHSIL AND DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (NONE)

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

This second appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant/tenant- Jhaadulal (now LRs) challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2019 passed by Sixth Additional District Judge, District Chhindwara in Regular Civil Appeal No.29-A/2017 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2017 Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TIWARI Signing time: 10/7/2023 10:13:18 AM

passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.1200047- A/2014 whereby respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction filed on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") has been decreed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that without taking into consideration the material available on record, learned Courts below have decreed the suit whereas no arrears of rent are there and the plaintiff being of the age of more than 74 years and having sufficient alternate accommodation to satisfy the existing need had no bonafide requirement. He submits that in the existing facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree of

eviction passed by learned Courts below is not sustainable.

3. However, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have already handed over possession of the shop in question to the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

5. While deciding the issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 learned Courts below have concurrently held that the defendant who was tenant in the suit shop on rent of Rs.1,000/- per month had not paid rent despite service of notice of demand and the plaintiff is in bonafide need of the suit shop for his business. Upon perusal of the record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below.

6. In the case of Kishore Singh vs. Satish Kumar Singhvi 2017(3) JLJ 375 a 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: APARNA TIWARI Signing time: 10/7/2023 10:13:18 AM

substantial question of law.

7. As such in my considered opinion, there is no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, hence the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE AT

Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TIWARI Signing time: 10/7/2023 10:13:18 AM