Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar vs Santosh Kumar Jain on 6 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36758
1 SA-1927-2025
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. 1927 of 2025
SUNIL KUMAR
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Premendra Sen - Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/defendant/tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated
21.07.2025 passed by Third District Judge, Sagar in RCA No.11/2025
affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2024 passed by Sixth Civil
Judge Junior Division, Sagar in civil suit No.228-A/2023 whereby both the
Courts below have concurrently decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for
eviction on the grounds of default in making payment of rent and bonafide
requirement of plaintiff 1's son Sudhir Kumar Jain, available under Section
12(1)(a)&(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the
Act').
2 . Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that both the
Courts below have committed an illegality in passing the judgment and
decree of eviction without taking into consideration the oral evidence
available on record in its real perspective. He submits that son of plaintiff 1
is already engaged in the business and there are other alternative
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36758
2 SA-1927-2025
accommodations available in the township of Sagar, hence suit could not
have been decreed.
3. 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
Hon'ble 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 of law.
4 . Although learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has tried to
criticize the findings recorded by Courts below, but in view of the aforesaid
settled legal position, has not been able to point out any illegality in the
concurrent findings recorded by Courts below in respect of the defaults
committed in making payment of rent and bonafide requirement of the rented
shop and lastly prays for withdrawal of this second appeal with the
submission that the appellant/defendant is in possession of the rented shop
for last more than 30 years, therefore, he may be granted time of 2 years for
vacating the rented shop.
5 . In view of the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the
appellant, although by declining interference in the impugned judgment and
decree passed by Courts below, this Court deems fit to grant time for
vacating the rented shop upto 31/07/2026 on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the rented shop on
or before 31/07/2026.
(ii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall regularly pay monthly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36758
3 SA-1927-2025
rent to the respondents/landlords 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 appellant/defendant/tenant shall not part with the rented
shop to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.
(iv) The appellant/defendant/tenant 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 appellant/defendant/tenant fails to comply with any of
the aforesaid conditions, the respondents/landlords shall be free to
execute the decree forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the
appellant/defendant/tenant does not vacate the rented shop on or before
31/07/2026 and creates any obstruction, he 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 appellant/defendant/tenant shall not
be entitled for further extension of time after 31/07/2026.
6. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is
hereby dismissed/ disposed of as withdrawn.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
