Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jitendra vs Mukesh on 2 July, 2025

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28790




                                                               1                           SA-922-2025
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                    ON THE 2 nd OF JULY, 2025
                                               SECOND APPEAL No. 922 of 2025
                                                         JITENDRA
                                                           Versus
                                                     MUKESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                            Shri Shailendra Verma - Advocate for the appellant.

                                                                   ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 22.03.2025 passed by Third District Judge, Burhanpur in RCA No.106/2023 reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 30.10.2023 passed by 6th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Burhanpur in RCSA No.141/2021 whereby trial Court dismissed the suit and in civil appeal filed by respondents/plaintiffs, first appellate Court has decreed the suit for eviction on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a),

(f)& (m) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

2. Undisputedly, there is relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the parties as the shop in question was given on rent to the defendant by respondent 1/plaintiff's mother Kamla Devi on 01.07.1968. Although trial Court has on the premise that the Will dated 05.11.2009 (Ex.P/1) executed by Kamla Devi in favour of the plaintiffs, is not proved, dismissed the suit and in civil appeal first appellate Court finding the Will in question to be proved and in view of the fact that respondent 1/plaintiff - Mukesh is son of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28790

2 SA-922-2025

Kamla Devi held the plaintiffs to be owner and landlord of the rented shop and also held that plaintiff 1 is in need of the shop for his Cloth business and there is no other alternative accommodation available in the township of Burhanpur. It has also been held that the defendant is defaulter in making payment of rent and raised material addition and alteration without permission of the landlord.

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. After arguing at length and conceding the legal position settled about the findings recorded by first appellate Court, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant prays for withdrawal of this second appeal and prays for grant of time upto 31.07.2026 to vacate the tenanted premises.

5. In view of the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant, but by declining interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court, this Court deems fit to grant time for vacating the tenanted premises upto 31.07.2026 on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the tenanted premises on or before 31.07.2026.

(ii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall regularly pay monthly rent to the respondents/landlords and shall also clear all the dues, if any, including

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28790

3 SA-922-2025 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 tenanted 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 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 tenanted premises 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 off as withdrawn.

7. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE