Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Kumar Goyal vs Vinod Kumar Goyal (Dead) Through Lrs (1) ... on 15 October, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17814
1 SA-1798-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1798 of 2024
UMESH KUMAR GOYAL AND OTHERS
Versus
VINOD KUMAR GOYAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS (1) SMT. ASHA
GOYAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Maheshwari - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/defendants/tenants challenging the judgment and decree dated
25.04.2024 passed by Seventh District Judge, Shivpuri in RCA No.32/2023
affirming judgment and decree dated 16.02.2023 passed by Second Civil
Judge Junior Division, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.61-A/2018, whereby Courts
below have decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for eviction on the ground
of bonafide requirement of business need available under Section 12(1)(f) of
the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17814
2 SA-1798-2024
of law.
3. After arguments at length and in view of the aforesaid legal position
learned counsel for the appellants/defendants in presence of one of the
appellants submits that appellants are ready to vacate the suit shop and they
may be granted 3 years time to vacate the shop in question.
4 . Initially, the prayer made on behalf of the appellants/tenants was
opposed by learned counsel for the respondents but upon some negotiations,
with the consent of respondent No.2 -Gaurav Goyal, who is present in
person, learned counsel consented to grant of two years' time to vacate the
suit shop, however, on payment of enhanced rent of Rs.500/- per month in
place of Rs.70/- per month.
5. In view of the aforesaid and declining interference in the impugned
judgment and decree passed by Courts below, this Court deems fit to grant
time for vacating the tenanted/suit shop upto 15.10.2026 on the following
conditions:-
(i) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall vacate the
tenanted/suit shop on or before 15.10.2026.
(ii) The appellants/defendants shall regularly pay future rent
@ Rs.500/- per month from today to the respondents/landlord and
shall also clear all the dues, if any, including the costs of the
litigation, if any, imposed by Courts below, within a period of 30
days.
(iii) The appellants/defendants shall not part with the suit
shop to anybody and shall not change nature of the same. \
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17814
3 SA-1798-2024
(iv) The appellants/defendants shall furnish an undertaking
with regard to the aforesaid conditions within a period of three
weeks before the learned Court below/Executing Court.
(v) If the appellants/defendants fail to comply with any of
the aforesaid conditions, the respondents/plaintiffs shall be free to
execute the decree forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the
appellants/defendants/tenants do not vacate the suit shop on or
before 15.10.2026 and create any obstruction, they 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 defendants/appellants shall not
be entitled for further extension of time after 15.10.2026.
6. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is hereby
disposed off.
7. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Rashid
