Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal vs Mohd. Arif on 23 January, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
SA-821 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 821 of 2006
BABULAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS RAM DAS AND OTHERS
Versus
MOHD. ARIF (DEAD) THROUGH LRS NOOR BANO AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Verma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pravesh Naveria - Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is preferred by the original appellant/defendant-Babulal
(now dead, through LRs-Ram Das and others) challenging the judgment and
decree dated 28.02.2006 passed by Addl. District Judge, Khurai, District Sagar, in
civil appeal no.116-A/04 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2004
passed by Addl. Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar, in civil suit
no.246-A/04 whereby Courts below have decreed original plaintiff-Mohd. Arif's
suit (now dead through LRs Noor Bano and others), 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').
2. In short, the facts are that, the plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction against
the original defendant-Babulal with the allegations that the defendant was given a
plot (ad measuring 25x50 sq.ft) on rent of Rs.20/- per month over which the
defendant got constructed a 'Tapra' but thereafter, stopped residing therein and
without prior permission of the plaintiff started doing business thereon. It is
alleged that the defendant has started residing in Lalitpur (U.P.), therefore, in fact
he is not in need of the accommodation. It is alleged that plaintiff's son Mohd.
SA-821 of 2006
Aslam and Mohd. Asgar have become major and they are in need of the
accommodation for starting their business and there is no other alternative
accommodation available with the plaintiff. On inter alia allegations, the suit was
filed.
3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement and admitted
relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant. It is
contended that defendant is using the accommodation for which it was taken and
has not breached terms and conditions of the rent agreement. It is also contended
that the plaintiff has no bonafide need of the accommodation for his sons. Denying
all other allegations, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and
recorded evidence of the parties and held that the plaintiff is in need of the
premises for starting business by his sons and there is no other alternative
accommodation available with the plaintiff in the township. While deciding issue
no.8, trial Court in paragraph 25 of its judgment also held that defendant is also
denying title of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff becomes entitled for decree of
eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act also. With these findings,
the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2004. The defendant-
Babulal preferred first appeal which vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006
was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of trial Court. Against which
instant second appeal was filed which was admitted for final hearing on
11.05.2006 on the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether as per the plaint the suit accommodation which was let out
for residential purpose to defendant can be get evicted for non-
residential purpose ?"
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that perusal of plaint shows
that the suit was filed with the allegations that accommodation was given for
residential purpose but thereafter, the defendant contrary to the agreement of
tenancy started doing business therein. He submits that in support of the plaint
SA-821 of 2006
averments similar evidence was adduced by the plaintiff, as such, it is clear that
the premises in question was given on rent for residential purpose, therefore, the
suit filed for eviction on the ground of non-residential need of the plaintiff's son
i.e. under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act cannot be decreed. With these submissions,
he prays for allowing the second appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiff/landlord supports
the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below and prays for
dismissal of the second appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Although, in the plaint there is no clear averment to the effect that for
which purpose the plot was given on rent, but the agreement of tenancy dated
10.04.1969 (Ex.P/1) shows that the plot was given on rent to the defendant for all
purposes including residence and in the written statement (para 4), the defendant
has clearly stated that the plot was given for starting business.
9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, including the rent agreement
(Ex.P/1), Courts below have come to the conclusion that the plot in question was
given on rent to the defendant for starting business and liberty was also given to
the defendant for residence after getting constructed house on part of it.
10. Upon perusal of the entire record, it does not appear that the plot in
question was given on rent to the defendant only for residential purpose. As such,
it can very well be said that the substantial question of law framed by this Court do
not arise.
11. 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.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, interference in the second appeal is
declined.
SA-821 of 2006
13. As a result thereof, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
14. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed and interim order
of stay, if any, shall stand vacated.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, 2.5.4.20=062bc13272373e2768c883468695ccafcb8f7bf9db7cbd37ad359bc82069bcdf, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
Pradesh, serialNumber=A08AE25ACEFF18C7A0F94698E1BC6A3CCF1DC9654549200EB1BC8E5DDF6349B0, cn=PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE
Date: 2025.01.24 11:27:35 +05'30'
