Smt. Mohini Devi W/O Late Shri Baijnath ... vs Acharaya P.Dr. Goswami Shri ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6497 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Mohini Devi W/O Late Shri Baijnath ... vs Acharaya P.Dr. Goswami Shri ... on 4 March, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                           1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                               ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 129 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SMT. MOHINI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI BAIJNATH
                         (DECEASED) THRU. LRS. SMT. RAJ W/O ARUN, AGED
                         ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEACHER 6/3, NEW
                         PALASIA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                         (SHRI VEER KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
                         NAMIT JAIN FOR THE APPELLANT) .

                         AND
                         ACHARAYA P.DR. GOSWAMI SHRI GOKULOTSAVAJI
                         MAHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 1, SOUTH
                         YASHWANTGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                         (SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SETHI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
                         HARISH JOSHI FOR RESPONDENT).

                               T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2021 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Indore in Regular Civil Appeal No.32/2018 affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2017 passed by 8th Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.77A/2015 decreeing the suit under section 12(1)(a), (b),

(c), (e), (h) & (o) of the M.P Accommodation Control Act.

2. A perusal of the impugned judgments and decree passed by the Courts

below reveal that they are well reasoned and have been passed after due consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has failed to show that how the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and based on no evidence etc. The learned Courts below have legally and rightly dealt with the issues involved in the matter and have recorded correct findings of facts. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings of facts concurrently recorded by the Courts below are not liable to be interfered with in the instant case as it cannot be said that Courts below have ignored any material evidence or has acted on no evidence or Courts have drawn wrong inferences from the proved

facts etc. Further, it cannot be said that evidence taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the findings. It can also be not said that the findings of Courts below are based on inadmissible evidence.

3. In view of the above, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in favour of plaintiff are fully justified by the evidence on record. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are not based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence nor it is shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays for two years time to vacate the suit premises. The prayer has been opposed by the counsel for the respondent. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are granted time up to 04.09.2025 for vacating the suit premises on the following conditions:

(i) Appellants shall deposit all arrears of rent and cost of the litigation, if any,

within six month from today and shall continue to pay the monthly rent by 10th of each succeeding month till they hand over vacant possession to the respondent.

(ii) Appellants shall not alter the nature of premises in any manner and shall not create any third party right over the suit premises during this period.

(iii) Appellants shall furnish an undertaking with regard to the aforesaid conditions within a period of three weeks from today before the trial Court.

(iv) In case of failure to give the undertaking or in default of payment as directed above, the respondent shall be entitled to execute the decree without waiting for expiry of the given period, as mentioned above.

(v) It is made clear that appellants shall not be entitled for further extension of time after 04.09.2025.

5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE hk/