Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devidas vs Mohd.Ahmad Khan on 24 July, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33821
1 SA-827-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 827 of 2008
DEVIDAS AND OTHERS
Versus
MOHD.AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shailesh Tiwari - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 9/5/2008 passed by Additional
Judge/Special Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Mandla
in Regular Civil Appeal No.27-A/2006 affirming the judgment and decree
dated 17/3/2006 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Mandla in Civil Suit
No.3-A/2005, whereby both the Courts below have concurrently decreed the
original respondents/plaintiffs Mohd. Ahmad Khan (now dead through LRs)
and Smt. Aadil Shahin Kaji's suit for eviction on the grounds of defaults in
making payment of rent available under Section 12(1)(a)
and bonafide requirement of plaintff 1-Mohd. Ahmad Khan as well as his
son Tanveer Khan for Advocate's Office available under Section 12(1)(f) of
the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
2. It is undisputed fact available on record that the defendants were
inducted as tenants by plaintiff 2-Smt. Aadil Shahin Kaji, who is owner and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33821
2 SA-827-2008
landlord of the shop in question admeasuring 10'x9' sqft on rent of Rs.200/-
per month. As such, there is a relationship of landlord and tenant in between
the plaintiff 2-Smt. Aadil Shahin Kaji and the defendants. The suit was filed
on the ground of defaults in making payment of rent and both the Courts
below have upon due consideration found that although the defendants have
paid entire rent, but they did not deposit the rent in accordance with Section
13(1) of the Act. It is also found that the rented shop is required for the
Advocate's Office of plaintiff 1-Mohd. Ahmad Khan (who is the husband of
plaintiff 2-Smt. Aadil Shahin Kaji) as well as his son Tanveer Khan and that
there is no other alternative suitable vacant accommodation available with
the plaintiffs in the township of Mandla.
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. Although this second appeal was admitted for final hearing on
22/9/2008, but in view of the aforesaid settled legal position about the scope
of interference in the second appeal on the ground of bonafide requirement
as well as in respect of defaults in making payment of rent, learned counsel
for the appellants/defendants prays for withdrawal of this second appeal and
prays for grant of time upto 31/12/2026 to vacate the tenanted premises/suit
shop, which is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33821
3 SA-827-2008
respondents/plaintiffs/landlords. As such, this Court is not required to decide
the formulated substantial questions of law.
5. In view of the unopposed prayer made by learned counsel for the
appellants, by declining interference in the impugned judgment and decree
passed by Courts below, this Court deems fit to grant time for vacating the
tenanted premises/suit shop upto 31/12/2026 on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall vacate the tenanted
premises/suit shop on or before 31/12/2026.
(ii) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall regularly pay monthly rent
to the respondents/landlords 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 tenanted
premises/suit shop 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 respondents/landlords 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/suit shop on or before 31/12/2026 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33821
4 SA-827-2008
(vii) It is made clear that the appellants/defendants/tenants shall not be
entitled for further extension of time after 31/12/2026.
6. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is hereby
dismissed/disposed of as withdrawn.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
