Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Chourasia vs Saraswati Pustakalaya & Vachnalaya on 1 July, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28474
1 SA-1238-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1238 of 2008
SURESH KUMAR CHOURASIA (NOW DEAD THROUGH LRs)
Versus
SARASWATI PUSTAKALAYA & VACHNALAYA
Appearance:
Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A. Usmani with Shri Anil Vishwakarma - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the original appellant/defendant-
Suresh Kumar Chourasia (now dead, through LRs) challenging the judgment and
decree dated 20.08.2008 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Sagar, in
Regular Civil Appeal No.43-A/2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated
31.10.2007 passed by Third Civil Judge, Class-I, Sagar, in Regular Civil Suit
No.10-A/2007 whereby Courts below have decreed the respondent/plaintiff's suit
for eviction of shop.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although the respondent
Trust is a Registered Public Trust and the defendant was inducted as a tenant in
the shop on the basis of rent note dated 06.10.1998 (Ex.P/2), but Sukhdev Prasad
Tiwari, the Sectetary of the Trust was not competent to file the suit, as his term as
secretary was already over and as such, the suit could not have been decreed. He
further submits that the plaintiff has also not been able to prove that entire income
of the Trust is being used for educational purpose. With these submissions, he
prays for admission of the second appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28474
2 SA-1238-2008
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned
judgment and decree and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. As has been held by learned Courts below and admitted by learned
counsel for the appellants, the respondent Trust is a Registered Public Trust under
the M.P. Public Trust Act and the defendant was inducted as a tenant by the
plaintiff- Trust on the basis of of rent note dated 06.10.1998 (Ex.P/2).
6. From the resolution (Ex.P/1), it is clear that that all the Trustees of the
Trust had authorized the Secretary - Sukhdev Prasad Tiwari to file the civil suit for
eviction, who in fact is a Trustee in the Trust. As such, even if, as Secretary, his
term was over, it cannot be said that he was not competent to file the suit,
therefore, both the Courts below have rightly held the suit to be maintainable and
properly instituted by the respondent/plaintiff.
7. As the respondent is a Public Trust, therefore, it is exempted from
operation of provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 hence
upon determination and termination of tenancy by issuing notice under Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction.
In that regard the plaintiff had issued a notice on 14.09.2005 (Ex. P/3), which was
admittedly received by the defendant and no reply was given by him and further,
the defendant has not been able to point out any illegality in the notice of
termination of tenancy.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the concurrent
judgment and decree of eviction passed by Courts below and upon perusal of the
entire record, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment and decree
passed by Courts below.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants prays for one
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28474
3 SA-1238-2008
year time i.e. upto 30.06.2026 to vacate the suit shop, which is not disputed by
learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord.
10. In view of prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court
deems fit to grant time for vacating the suit shop/tenanted premises
upto 30.06.2026 on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall vacate the suit shop on or
before 30.06.2026.
(ii) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall regularly pay monthly
rent to the respondent/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
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 respondent/landlord shall be free to execute the
decree forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the
appellants/defendants/tenants do not vacate the suit shop on or before
30.06.2026 and create any obstruction, appellants 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 30.06.2026.
11. With the aforesaid observations and declining inferecne, this second
appeal is hereby dismissed/disposed off.
12. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
