Ghanshyam Das Agrawal vs Smt Pushpa Agarwal
2023 Latest Caselaw 17916 MP

                                                                 1
                            IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                ON THE 27 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                               SECOND APPEAL No. 1243 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           GHANSHYAM DAS AGRAWAL S/O LAXMI NARAYAN
                           AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O SHARDA
                           STATIONARY IIRD LINE SARAFA BAZAR ITARSI
                           DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI GAURAV DUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           SMT PUSHPA AGARWAL S/O SHRI SANTULAL
                           AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O IIIRD LINE
                           ITARSI DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR VERMA - ADVOCATE )

                                   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 21.03.2023 passed by First District Judge, Itarsi, District Narmadapuram in RCA No.02/23 affirming the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2022 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Itarsi in R.C.S.A/52/2017, whereby respondent/plaintiff/landlord's suit for eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) & (f) of M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act'') has been decreed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUPRIYA SHARMA Signing time: 10/28/2023 2:56:44 PM

2. 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 substantial question of law.

3. After arguments at length and realising the settled legal position that the findings recorded concurrently by learned Courts below on the question of bonafide requirement, do not raise any substantial question of law, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant prays for 18 months' time to vacate

the suit shop, which has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent and he submits that at the most only one year time may be granted imposing certain conditions.

4. In view of the aforesaid, declining interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below, this Court deems fit to grant one year time for vacating the suit shop on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant/defendant shall vacate the suit shop on or before 31.10.2024.

(ii) The appellant/defendant 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 appellant/defendant shall not part with the suit shop to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.

(iv) The appellant/defendant shall furnish an undertaking with regard to the aforesaid conditions within a period of three weeks before the learned Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUPRIYA SHARMA Signing time: 10/28/2023 2:56:44 PM

Court below/Executing Court.

(v) If the appellant/defendant fails 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 appellant/defendant does not vacate the suit shop on or before 31.10.2024 and creates any obstruction, he shall be liable to pay mesne profits of Rs.500/- per day, so also contempt of order of this Court.

(vii) It is made clear that the defendant/appellant shall not be entitled for further extension of time after 31.10.2024.

5. With the aforesaid observation, this second appeal is hereby dismissed and disposed off. No order as to costs.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE anu

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUPRIYA SHARMA Signing time: 10/28/2023 2:56:44 PM