[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnath Patel vs Rukmani Devi (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
SA-515 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 3rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 515 of 2013
RAMNATH PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
RUKMANI DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SMT. KANTI AGRAWAL AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhilesh Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Somesh Shukla - Advocate for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2013 passed by Addl. District
Judge, Maihar, District Satna in civil appeal nos.47A/2012 and 19A/2013
reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2012 passed by 1st Civil Judge
Class-II, Maihar in civil suit no.38A/2009, whereby Trial Court decreed the
respondents/plaintiffs' suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement
available under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
(in short 'the Act') and in civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs and defendants both,
the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of Trial Court and by
negating the ground of bonafide requirement available under Section 12(1)(f) of
the Act, decreed the suit on the ground of defaults in making payment of rent
available under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Fact remains that the plaintiffs filed
the suit on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a),(b) &(f) of the Act.
2. In short, the facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs had instituted a suit
for eviction of the disputed/rented shop with the allegations that the defendant 1-
SA-515 of 2013
Ramnath Patel was inducted as a tenant in the shop on rent of Rs.500/- per month,
which was later on enhanced to Rs.800/- per month. It is alleged in the plaint that
in spite of issuance of demand notice, the defendant did not pay/deposit the rent
and sublet the shop to the defendants 2-3. It is alleged that the suit shop is required
bonafidely by the plaintiffs and there is no other alternative accommodation
available in the township of Maihar. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed.
3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint
averments and contended that there are no arrears of rent against the defendant and
plaintiffs do not require the rented shop for starting the alleged business and there
is sufficient alternative accommodation available with the plaintiffs to start the
alleged business. It is also contended that the defendant 1 never sublet the shop to
the defendants 2-3. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues and
recorded evidence of the parties. The plaintiffs in support of their case, examined
Rukmani Devi (PW/1) and Ramji Agrawal (PW/2) and produced documentary
evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/6). The defendants also in support of their case, examined
Ramnath Patel (DW/1), Satish Soni (DW/2) and Prakash Sharma (DW/3) and
produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/10).
5. Then after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, Trial
Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2012 decreed the suit only on the
ground of bonafide requirement available under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act and
refused to pass decree of eviction on other grounds i.e. under section 12(1)(a) &
(b) of the Act.
6. Against the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, both the parties
preferred two separate civil appeals. After hearing arguments of the counsel for the
parties, First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree dtd.
09.04.2013 allowed both the appeals preferred by the plaintiffs and defendants and
by setting aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by Trial Court on the
ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, decreed the suit on the ground of
SA-515 of 2013
defaults in making payment/deposit of monthly rent available under Section
12(1)(a) of the Act, however, affirmed the findings recorded by Trial Court in
respect of the ground of subletting available under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act.
7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate
Court, instant second appeal was preferred by the appellants/defendants, which
was admitted for final hearing on 02.08.2013 on the following substantial question
of law:-
"Whether in the absence of any finding that on receipt of notice demanding
arrears of rent, the appellant has failed to deposit the arrears of rent, the
lower appellate Court committed error of law in granting a decree under
Section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 merely on the
ground that there has been non-compliance of provisions of Section 13(1) of
the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?"
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that although the
plaintiffs had issued the notice dated 30.04.2008 (Ex.P/4) demanding arrears of
rent of Rs.55,000/-, which was not replied by the defendants, but upon institution
of the suit on 22.09.2008, the defendants as per the order dated 19.10.2010 passed
by Trial Court, deposited the entire arrears of rent, hence the Trial Court rightly
dismissed the suit for eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act but
the First Appellate Court without taking into consideration this aspect of the
matter, wrongly decreed the suit on the ground of defaults in making payment of
rent. Taking this Court to paragraphs 16 & 17 of the statement of Rukmani (PW/1)
and paragraph 11 of the statement of Ramji (PW/2), learned counsel submits that
in the light of admissions made by these witnesses it is clear that there were no
dues against the defendants and in view of the fact that the defendants paid entire
rent even prior to filing of the suit, no decree of eviction could have been passed.
In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bansilal Mohanlal Maheshwari vs. Dr. Prabhakar
SA-515 of 2013
Laxmishankar Rasane and another, (1977) 4 SCC 602 and prays for allowing the
second appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supports the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and prays for dismissal
of the second appeal with the further submissions that only on the basis of deposit
of the entire rent on 20.10.2010, it cannot be said that the Trial Court had
condoned the delay in depositing the rent and in view of clear and undisputed
defaults, the First Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit on the ground of
defaults in making payment of monthly rent provided under Section 12(1)(a) of the
Act.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. In the present case, the suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiffs on the
grounds available under Section 12(1)(a),(b) and (f) of the Act and the First
Appellate Court has granted decree of eviction only on the ground of defaults in
making payment of monthly rent provided under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act.
Undisputedly, the notice dated 30.04.2008 (Ex.P/4) was issued by the plaintiffs
demanding arrears of rent of Rs.55,000/- and was also served on the defendant 1,
but no reply was given by him. It is apparent that suit in question was instituted on
22.09.2008 and the defendants appeared therein before the Trial Court on
22.10.2008, but no rent was deposited by them. As has been found by First
Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and argued by learned counsel for the
appellants, the rent was deposited first time only on 20.10.2010 under the interim
order dtd.19.10.2010 passed by the Trial Court.
12. From perusal of interim order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Trial
Court, it is clear that it did not condone the delay caused by the defendant in
making deposit of arrears of rent and it only permitted the defendant to deposit the
arrears of rent without passing any order of condoning the delay. As such, in my
considered opinion, mere grant of permission by the Trial Court to deposit the
SA-515 of 2013
monthly rent, cannot be treated as an order of condonaton of delay in making
payment/deposit of rent required to be deposited as per Section 13(1) of the Act.
13. First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment, has taken into
consideration the said aspect of the matter in detail and found the defendants to be
in arrears of rent and decreed the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the
Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that neither any suggestion was given to
the plaintiffs' witnesses nor any material has been placed on record to the effect
that the defendant had deposited the entire rent prior to or after issuance of notice
dated 30.04.2008 or within a period of 30 days after institution of the suit on
22.09.2008, and apparently no admission has been made by the plaintiff Rukmani
Bai and her witness Ramji regarding payment of arrears of rent to her by the
defendants after issuance of demand notice.
14. So far as the aforementioned substantial question of law formulated by
this Court, is concerned, it is an admitted fact that even after issuance of notice
dated 30.04.2008 (Ex.P/4), the defendant did not pay/deposit any rent, so, in my
considered opinion, the substantial question of law formulated by this Court, does
not arise in the second appeal for consideration of this Court and decision in the
case of Bansilal Mohanlal Maheshwari (supra) does not provide any help to the
case of appellants.
15. Resultantly, instant second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
