Madhya Pradesh High Court

Babulal Soni vs Abhinav Kumar Jain on 6 May, 2024

                                                            1
                          IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                 ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
                                            SECOND APPEAL No. 2654 of 2019

                         BETWEEN:-
                         BABULAL SONI S/O DURGAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 74
                         YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER GANDHI CHOUK
                         WARD SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI SHYAM YADAV - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         ABHINAV KUMAR JAIN S/O SANTOSH KUMAR, AGED
                         ABOUT 37 YEARS, WARD NO.102 IN FRONT OF PARAS
                         TALKIES GANDHI CHOUK WARD SAGAR (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                         (BY SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE)

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

Heard on admission.

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC) has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff") being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.07.2018 passed

by the Xth Civil Judge, Class-II, District Sagar in Civil Suit No. 41-A/2016, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction on the grounds of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has

been decreed by the trial Court. This judgment is affirmed by dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.63/2018 vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2019 whereby the judgement and decree passed in favour of the appellant/defendant has been affirmed.

3. Learned trial Court after framing the issues necessary for resolving the dispute between the parties afforded reasonable opportunity for adducing evidence and came to the conclusion that plaintiff/respondent succeeded in proving his case for eviction on the ground of Section 12(1)(f) of Act, 1961, bonafide need for non-residential purpose.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that first appellate Court has

failed to appreciate the contentions raised in support of application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed for taking additional evidence regarding alternative accommodation available to the plaintiff/respondent. Therefore, this second appeal may be admitted for substantial question of law as proposed in the appeal memo.

5. From the perusal of the judgement of the first appellate Court, it is found that the Courts below had extensively dealt with the application filed for taking additional evidence in paragraph No.11 to 16 and came to the conclusion that no grounds could be made out by the appellant for allowing his application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and therefore, dismissed the application and on merits both the Courts below have given the concurrent finding that plaintiff/respondent succeeded in proving the case for eviction on the ground of bonafide need for the tenanted premises.

6. In considered view of this Court, the findings are not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record and no substantial question of law is involved. Therefore, there is no justification in disturbing the concurrent

findings and facts recorded by the Courts below.

7. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE pnm