Badri Prasad vs The Nimad Industrial Corp. Pvt. Ltd.
2025 Latest Caselaw 6301 MP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6301 MP
Judgement Date : 20 August, 2025

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Badri Prasad vs The Nimad Industrial Corp. Pvt. Ltd. on 20 August, 2025

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, Avanindra Kumar Singh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39519




                                                                 1                                    SA-1071-2000
                              IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                   ON THE 20th OF AUGUST, 2025
                                                 SECOND APPEAL No. 1071 of 2000
                                                     BADRI PRASAD
                                                        Versus
                                          THE NIMAD INDUSTRIAL CORP. PVT. LTD.
                           Appearance:
                              Shri T.S. Ruprah - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri U.S. Tiwari - Advocate for the
                           appellant.
                              None for the respondent.

                                                                     ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2000 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in civil appeal no.4A/1997 reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.08.1996 passed by Addl. Civil Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Khandwa in civil suit no.116A/1996, whereby trial Court dismissed the respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction filed on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a)&(c) of the M.P.

Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter in short 'the Act'), but in civil appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the suit has been decreed on both the grounds along with arrears of rent, if any.

2 . Against the judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court, instant second appeal was preferred which was admitted for final hearing on 30.03.2001 on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39519

2 SA-1071-2000 the denial of title of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit premises by the defendant/appellant amounts to dis-claimer of title, entailing a decree for eviction of the suit premises for grounds under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act ?

2. Whether in view of the findings on the above substantial question of law and the fact that the rent of the suit premises was being deposited by the defendant/appellant before the Rent Controlling Authority for payment to the real landlord, the finding of the learned first appellate Court that the defendant/appellant is defaulter, is perverse and thus not sustainable in law ?"

3 . In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the suit premises was given on rent by father of Director of plaintiff-Corporation namely, G.D. Bagdi and the defendant is residing in the premises as a tenant, which is also clear from paragraphs 2 and 4 of the written statement, however, in the written statement, he has denied title of the plaintiff by saying that the suit premises belongs to Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and taking into

consideration this aspect of the matter and in view of the fact that the defendant did not pay the monthly rent in accordance with Section 13(1) of the Act, first appellate Court has decreed the suit on both the grounds under Sections 12(1)(a) & (c) of the Act, although trial Court had dismissed the suit.

4 . After arguing at length and in view of the admissions made in the written statement, learned Senior counsel for the appellant/defendant has not been able to point out any illegality in the judgment and decree of eviction passed by first appellate Court and prays for withdrawal of this second appeal upon granting one year time to vacate the suit premises.

5 . Upon due consideration and in view of the aforesaid factual scenario and there being no opposition to the prayer made on behalf of the appellant, however, by declining interference in the impugned judgment and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39519

3 SA-1071-2000 decree passed by first appellate Court, this Court deems fit to grant time for vacating the suit premises upto 15.08.2026 on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the suit premises on or before 15.08.2026.

(ii) The appellant/defendant/tenant 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 Court below, within a period of 30 days.

(iii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall not part with the suit premises 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 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 appellant/defendant/tenant does not vacate the tenanted premises on or before 15.08.2026 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.