Madhya Pradesh High Court

Satish vs Prakash Chandra on 2 May, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                            1
                          IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                                 ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
                                            SECOND APPEAL No. 1874 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SATISH S/O GOVINDLAL GARG, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
                         OCCUPATION: BUSINESS PRIME CITY INDORE.
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                         (SHRI HARISH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

                         AND
                         PRAKASH CHANDRA S/O GHISULAL JI SURANA, AGED
                         ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 07 THIRD
                         L.I.G. JANTA COLONY STADIUM GROUND DISTRICT
                         INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI SATISH CHANDRA SHIRVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                         RESPONDENT [R-1].

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

This appeal by the defendant under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2023 passed by 20th District Judge, Indore in Regular Civil Appeal No.42/2021 affirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2021 passed by 11th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indore in Civil Suit No.292A/18 decreeing the suit under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P Accommodation Control Act.

2. There are concurrent findings of fact against the appellant/defendant. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not

wish to contest the appeal on merit and prays for reasonable time preferably up to 31.05.2026 for vacating the tenanted premises.

3. The prayer has not been seriously opposed by the counsel for the respondent.

4. In view of the above, this second appeal is hereby dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. However, appellant is granted time up to 31.05.2026 for vacating the premises on the following conditions:

(i) Appellant 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) Appellant 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) Appellant 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.