Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Chandrakant Vamanrao Magre vs Shri Digamber Jain Khandelwal
2025 Latest Caselaw 2796 MP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2796 MP
Judgement Date : 6 August, 2025

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chandrakant Vamanrao Magre vs Shri Digamber Jain Khandelwal on 6 August, 2025

Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, Anil Verma
         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36550




                                                                 1                                    SA-910-2015
                               IN        THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                           BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                    ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
                                                  SECOND APPEAL No. 910 of 2015
                                               CHANDRAKANT VAMANRAO MAGRE
                                                            Versus
                                         SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN KHANDELWAL AND OTHERS
                            Appearance:
                               Shri Sankalp Kochar with Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur, Advocates for appellant.
                               Shri Manish Kumar Verma with Ms. Nidhi Sonkar, Advocate for respondent 1.

                                                                     ORDER

This second appeal is preferred by the original appellant/defendant- Chandrakant Vamanrao Magre (now dead, through LRs) challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 22.07.2015 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa in Regular Civil Appeal No.4A/2015 affirming the judgment and decree dtd.28.07.2009 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Khandwa in Civil Suit No.41A/2008 whereby both the Courts below have decreed the suit for eviction of rented shop under the general law because the

plaintiff being registered public trust, the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not applicable.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although the Courts below have decreed the suit for eviction under the general law, but the plaintiff/trust has taken the grounds provided under Section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and upon failure to prove the same, the suit ought to have been dismissed, however, he does not dispute service

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36550

2 SA-910-2015 of notice on the defendant issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating tenancy of the defendant and after arguing at length but faced with the situation that the suit is not under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and tenancy of the defendant was terminated legally by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of this second appeal with the submission that the appellants are ready to vacate the rented shop and they may be granted time of one year up to 31.07.2026, which has not been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent/trust.

3. In view of the unopposed prayer made by learned counsel for the

appellants and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems fit to grant time for vacating the suit shop/rented premises upto 31.07.2026 on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall vacate the rented premises on or before 31.07.2026.

(ii) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall regularly pay monthly rent to the respondent/plaintiff/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/tenants shall not part with the rented premises to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.

(iv) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall furnish an undertaking with regard to the aforesaid conditions within a period of three weeks before

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36550

3 SA-910-2015 the learned Court below/Executing Court.

(v) If the appellants/defendants/tenants fail to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent/plaintiff/landlord shall be free to execute the decree forthwith.

(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellants/defendants/tenants do not vacate the rented premises on or before 31.07.2026 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 appellants/defendants/tenants shall not be entitled for further extension of time after 31.07.2026.

4. In view of the aforesaid, interference in the impugned judgment and decree is declined and this second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.

5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE

KPS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter