Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Dulares vs The Nimad Industrial Corporation ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39519
1 SA-1457-2009
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. 1457 of 2009
RAM DULARE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE NIMAD INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PVT.LTD.
Appearance:
Shri T.S. Ruprah - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri U.S. Tiwari - Advocate for the
appellants.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2009 passed by 3rd Addl.
District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in civil appeal no.5A/2009 affirming
the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001 passed by III Civil Judge Class-I,
Khandwa in civil suit no.29A/2001, whereby Courts below have decreed the
respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction on the grounds available under Section
12(1)(a) &(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter in
short 'the Act'), along with arrears of rent, if any.
2 . Against the judgment and decree passed by Courts below, instant
second appeal was preferred which was admitted for final hearing on
13.01.2016 on the following substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the
appellants had deposited the rent by moving an application before
the Rent Controlling Authority and also when there is continuous
litigation with regard to the title of the suit accommodation, the
denial of the title of the respondent over the suit premises amounts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39519
2 SA-1457-2009
to disclaimer of the title and entailing a decree for eviction of the
suit premises under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act ?
2. Whether in view of the findings on the substantial question of
law and the fact that the rent of the suit premises was being
deposited by the appellant before the Rent controlling Authority
and thereafter continuously being deposited in the trial Court in
advance for payment to the real landlord. The findings of the
learned courts below that the appellants are liable to be evicted
under Section 12(1)(a) is perverse and thus not sustainable under
the 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,
Gangadharji Bagdi and the defendants are residing in the premises as
tenants, which is also clear from paragraphs 2 and 4 of the written statement,
however, in the written statement, they have 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, both the Courts have decreed the suit on both the grounds
under Sections 12(1)(a) & (c) of the Act.
4 . After arguing at length and in view of the admissions made in the
written statement, learned Senior counsel for the appellants/defendants has
not been able to point out any illegality in the judgment and decree of
eviction passed by Courts below 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
appellants, however, by declining interference in the impugned judgment and
decree passed by Courts below, this Court deems fit to grant time for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39519
3 SA-1457-2009
vacating the suit premises upto 15.08.2026 on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall vacate the suit premises on
or before 15.08.2026.
(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 suit
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
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 tenanted premises on or before 15.08.2026 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 15.08.2026.
6. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39519
4 SA-1457-2009
7 . Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
