Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Kumar Sindhi (Karwani) Dead ... vs Devendra Bansal on 1 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7535
1 SA-581-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 581 of 2025
JAGDISH KUMAR SINDHI (KARWANI) DEAD THROUGH LRS (I) PANKAJ
KARWANI AND OTHERS
Versus
DEVENDRA BANSAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj- Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Vinod
Bhardwaj- Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Naval Kumar Gupta - Senior Advocate with Smt. Rashi Kushwah-
Advocate for respondent No. 1.
ORDER
The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of
Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 11/2/2025 passed by
3rd District Judge, Gwalior in RCA No. 58/2024, whereby, the First Appellate
Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5/1/2024 passed by 7th Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in RCSA No. 407/2019. Vide aforesaid judgment
and decree, learned both the Court have passed a decree for eviction against the
appellants.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that original defendant Jagdish Kumar
Sindhi (Karwani) was the tenant of the plaintiff in the suit shop since 3/9/1976.
The suit accommodation is rented for non-residential purpose. It is also no more
in dispute that on the date of filing of the suit, the monthly rent was Rs. 1700/-.
The plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction alleging that the defendant has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7535
2 SA-581-2025
failed to pay rent after 2/1/2018 and despite service of notice demanding arrears of
rent served on defendant on 14/12/2018, he failed to deposit the rent. It is further
pleaded that the plaintiff is unemployed and bona fidely required the suit shop for
starting his clothes business. It was pleaded that the shop No. 12 is vacant and
available with the plaintiff while eviction proceedings in respect of shop No. 13
are going on and the plaintiff would start his business after joining the area of
shop Nos. 12 and 13. It was further pleaded that the suit shop would be used as a
godown. The suit was thus filed seeking eviction of the defendant on the grounds
under Section 12 (1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
(for brevity "Act of 1961").
3. The defendant after service of summons appeared before the trial Court
and filed his written statement. It was submitted that he tried to pay the monthly
rent regularly, however, the plaintiff in order to make out a case for eviction
declined to accept the rent. The defendant also disputed the bona fides of the
plaintiff's requirement for suit shop.
4. Learned trial Court after taking oral and documentary evidence of both
the sides, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 5/1/2024 holding that the
defendant is the tenant in the suit shop at the monthly rent of Rs. 1700/-; that the
defendant did not tender the arrears of rent despite demand notice served to him
and the suit shop is bona fidely required for starting plaintiff's clothes business for
which he does not have any alternate suitable accommodation available.
5. The defendant being aggrieved by this judgment and decree, filed an
appeal which also suffered dismissal vide impugned judgment and decree dated
11/2/2025.
6. As per the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1961, the defendant is
required to tender the entire demanded arrears of rent within a period of one month
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7535
3 SA-581-2025
from the date of service of summon of the suit. Section 12 (3) of the Act of 1961
provides that no order for eviction of tenant shall be made on the ground under
Section 12(1)(a), if the tenant makes the payment of rent as required under Section
13 of the Act of 1961. The proviso to Section 12(3) of the Act of 1961 provides
that the tenant shall not be entitled to benefit under Section 12(3), if having
obtained such benefit once, he commits a default in the payment of rent.
7. It is borne out from the records that the service of summons of the suit
was effected on 10/2/2019. He was thus, required to deposit the entire demanded
arrears of rent within one month i.e. 9/3/2019. However, the rent for the period
from 1/1/2018 to 30/9/2019 was deposited by him on 26/9/2019.Thus, there was
delay of more than seven months as per Section 13 of the Act of 1961. Learned
Trial Court vide order dated 27/3/2021 condoned the delay in depositing this rent.
Thus, the defendant obtained the benefit under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1961
pursuant to order dated 27/3/2021 passed by the learned Trial Court.
8. The appellant has filed the chart showing the details of deposit of rent by
the defendant for the period from 1/1/2018 to July, 2025. It is gathered from the
chart that defendant was irregular in depositing the rent strictly in accordance with
Section 13(1) of the Act of 1961. For example, for the month of April to July,
2020, the rent is deposited on 6/7/2020. Meaning thereby, the rent for the month
of April, May and June is deposited with delay. In the month of July again the rent
which was to be deposited on 15th August, 2020 is deposited on 23rd August,
2020. Likewise, the rent for the month of December, 2020 is stated to be
deposited on 4/1/2024. Again for the month of May, 2021, the rent is deposited on
7/6/2021. Thus, the factum of delay in depositing the rent is considered by the
learned Trial Court in paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of its judgment and has recorded
a finding of fact that the defendant/tenant has failed to strictly comply with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7535
4 SA-581-2025
provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act of 1961.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Sayeda Akhtar Vs. Abdul Ahad, (2003)7
SCC 52, after appreciating the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1961 held in
paragraph No. 9 as under:-
"9. The High Court in its impugned judgment did not point out
as to how the court of appeal committed an error of records in arriving
at the said finding. Admittedly, there had been two defaults i.e. rent for
the month of November 1985 and rents for the months of May and June
1988. The High Court purported to have recorded that the appellant had
applied for condonation of delay in payment of rent on 5/2/1990 in
relation to default to deposit rent for the month of November 1985 and
for the months of May and June 1988. An application for condonation
of delay could not have been entertained on 5/2/1990 for commission
of default in depositing the rent. We, therefore, are of the opinion that
the High Court was not correct in interfering with the findings of fact
arrived at by the first appellate court."
Thus, the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has not even condoned the
default in making payment of rent for two months which means in other words the
provisions of Section 13 (1) of the Act of 1961 are required to be strictly followed
which the defendant in the instant case has failed to do.
10.The tenant having once obtained the benefit of Section 12(3) of the Act
of 1961 on 27/3/2021, is not entitled to get further indulgence by the Court, if he
commits further default in compliance of Section 13 (1) of the Act of 1961. Thus,
the finding of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the First
Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse and does not warrant interference by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7535
5 SA-581-2025
this Court. Thus, the decree passed by learned Trial Court under Section 12 (1)(a)
of the Act of 1961 is hereby affirmed.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued with regard to the
findings of Court below regarding bona fide need of the respondent/landlord.
However, even if a question of law may arise with regard to findings of bona fide
need of the landlord that would not be a substantial question of law inasmuch as
the decree of eviction is already affirmed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of
1961. In other words, even if the decree passed by Courts below under Section
12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 is set aside, it would not effect the final outcome of the
suit and the decree of eviction stands against the defendant. Therefore, the
arguments made by learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the findings
of bona fide need of the respondent/landlord are not required to be examined.
12. In view of the discussion made above, no substantial question of law
arises for consideration in the instant appeal. The appeal being devoid of
substance, is hereby dismissed.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays for some time to
vacate the premises in question.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts
below are affirmed and a period of one year from today is granted to appellants to
vacate the suit shop on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall vacate the
tenanted/suit property on or before 31.03.2026.
(ii) The appellants/defendants shall regularly pay rent to the
respondent/landlord strictly in compliance of Section 13(1) of the Act
of 1961 and shall also clear all the dues, if any, including the costs of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7535
6 SA-581-2025
the litigation, if any, imposed by Courts below.
(iii) The appellants/defendants shall not part with the suit
property to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.
(iv) The appellants/defendants shall furnish an undertaking with
regard to the aforesaid conditions within a period of three weeks before
Court below/Executing Court.
(v) If the appellants/defendants fail to comply with any of the
aforesaid conditions, the respondent/plaintiff shall be free to execute
the decree forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of undertaking, the
appellants/defendants/tenants do not vacate the suit property on or
before 31.03.2026 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 31.03.2026.
15. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is hereby
dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
