Madhya Pradesh High Court
Registered Akhil Bharat Varsiya ... vs Smt Gopi Vyas on 18 June, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12129
1 C.R. No. 985 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 985 of 2024
REGISTERED AKHIL BHARAT VARSIYA SHRIMALI BRAHMAN
SAMAJ SANSTHA THROUGH PRESIDENT VIDHU SHEKHAR DUBEY
Versus
SMT GOPI VYAS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamal Mangal, Advocate for the applicant.
ORDER
This civil revision, under Section 115 of the CPC, has been filed against
the judgment dated 29.5.2023 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Lashkar
District Gwalior in Case No. 24/95-96/90-7 by which an order of eviction has
been passed against respondents Nos. 11 to 14.
2. lt is submitted by counsel for applicant that applicant had already
obtained a decree for eviction against the tenant and in execution of decree,
possession was also delivered but the LRs of Shyamlal are trying to get back
the possession from applicant under the garb of impugned order, therefore,
making it necessary for the applicant to file this revision.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12129
3. It is not out of place to mention here that respondent Nos. 11 to 14 had
also filed Civil Revision No. 489 of 2023 and the same has been withdrawn
today on the ground that the present applicant had also filed a civil suit for
eviction and decree was passed. It was further submitted that in execution of
said decree, respondent Nos. 11-14 have already handed over vacant
possession of the suit premises to the applicant and therefore they do not wish
to proceed further with that civil revision.
4. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that one Shantilal was the Pujari
appointed by society/applicant for maintenance of temple. Shyamlal Vyas was
the close relative of Shantilal Pujari. With the passage of time, Shyamlal Vyas
started claiming himself to be the landlord of the property without any basis
and contrary to the fact that Shantilal Pujari was appointed by the Society itself.
Applicant filed a suit for eviction against Inder Chand Jain and respondent No.
12 Nemichand Jain which was registered as Civil Suit No. 12A of 2012. The
suit was filed on 5.12.1997. Shyamlal Vyas also filed a suit for eviction and
recovery of rent against Inder Chand Jain and respondent No. 12 which was
registered as Civil Suit No. 11A of 2012. During the pendency of suit, Inder
Chand Jain died and respondent Nos. 11, 13 and 14 were substituted as legal
representatives of Inder Chand Jain. Civil Suit No. 11A of 2012 filed by
Shyamlal Vyas and Civil Suit No. 12A of 2012 filed by applicant were
consolidated by order dated 16.11.2005. A common issue was framed whether
respondent Nos. 11 to 14 are the tenants of Shyamlal or the present applicant ?
Both the civil suits were collectively decided and the suit filed by the present
applicant was decreed and it was specifically held that respondent Nos. 11 to 14
are tenants of applicant and the suit filed by Shyamlal was dismissed by giving
a finding that Shyamlal has no right in the property and further that he is not the
landlord of respondent Nos. 11-14.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12129
Against the said judgment two appeals were filed, i.e. one was filed by
respondent Nos. 11-14 against the decree of eviction and another by Shyamlal
against the judgment and decree of dismissal of his suit. Appeal filed by
Shyamlal was dismissed by first appellate Court by order dated 29.1.2016 on
the ground of delay. During the pendency of civil appeal, possession of the suit
property was also obtained by applicant by means of execution proceedings and
panchnama was also prepared in that regard on 4.10.2013. In order to avoid the
judgment of appellate court, it is alleged that Shyamlal approached the Rent
Controlling Authority for eviction of respondent Nos. 11-14. Applicant filed an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment on the basis of
judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013. The said application was allowed by
order dated 22.10.2021. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2021,
respondent Nos. 1-10 filed civil revision which was allowed by this Court by
order dated 7.1.2022 passed in CR No. 403 of 2021 and it was held that
respondent Nos. 1-10 were not party to suit wherein decree for eviction with
regard to rented shop has been passed against the tenant and in favour of the
applicant. It was further observed that the said decree will take its own course
as per law and this Court under the proceedings is not required to comment
upon the effect and operation of the said decree and the Rent Controlling
Authority would decide the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties
taking into consideration the pleadings and oral as well as documentary
evidence led by both the sides including said decree of Civil Court and all other
elements related to the disputes which are pending before several courts up to
Supreme Court as produced before it by the parties. It is submitted that
applicant has also filed Civil Suit RCSA No. 852 of 2023 against respondent
Nos. 1-10 for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the said suit is
pending. It is submitted that by the impugned order dated 29.5.2023, Rent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12129
Controlling Authority has held that Shyamlal was ex-judicial officer and he has
filed an application for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. It was held
that the landlord-tenant relationship is existing between Shyamlal and
respondent Nos 11-14 and accordingly order of eviction has been passed. It is
submitted that now in the light of order, respondent Nos 11-14 are proceeding
further with execution proceedings and are trying to dispossess the applicant
from the property in question which was acquired by it in execution of decree
passed by Civil Court.
5. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent
Nos 1-10.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. According to the applicant, the applicant filed civil suit against Inder
Chand Jain and Nemichand Jain. Respondent Nos. 11, 13 and 14 are legal
representatives of Inder Chand Jain and Nemimchand Jain is respondent No.12
in present revision. The aforesaid suit was filed by applicant on 5.12.1997. It
appears that during the pendency of suit filed by the applicant, Shyamlal also
filed a suit on 19.3.2002 against the legal representatives of Inder Chand Jain,
i.e. respondent Nos. 11, 13 and 14 and Nemichand Jain i.e. respondent No. 12.
Both the suits were consolidated and by separate judgments and decrees dated
16.5.2013, the suit filed by applicant was decreed and decree for eviction was
passed against tenants i.e. respondent Nos. 11-14. Similarly, the civil suit filed
by Shyamlal i.e. Civil Suit No. 11A of 2012 was also decided by separate
judgment on 16.5.2013 itself and the suit was dismissed by holding that the
applicant is the owner/landlord of the suit property. It is true that in the suit
filed by applicant, Shyamlal was not a party and similarly in the suit filed by
Shyamlal, applicant was not a party, but both the civil suits were consolidated
and were tried by the same Court and were decided by separate judgments and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12129
decrees passed by the same court on 16.5.2013. Shyamlal preferred an appeal
which was dismissed as barred by time by order dated 29.1.2016. In the
meanwhile, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.
12A of 2012 was executed and possession of the disputed property was
delivered to the applicant on 4.10.2013.
8. The question of title has already been decided by the trial Court in favour
of applicant. Even in the suit filed by Shyamlal i.e. RCSA No. 11A of 2012,
issue No. 8 was framed which was to the effect as to whether Shyamlal is the
owner/landlord or applicant is the owner/landlord and it was specifically held
that applicant is the owner and landlord of the property in dispute. Thus, once it
was already held by the trial Court in a suit filed by Shyamlal that applicant is
the owner, then the Rent Controlling Authority should not have taken a
contrary view in the matter, primarily on the ground that Shyamlal was not a
party to the suit filed by applicant against the tenants.
9. It is submitted by counsel for the parties that a civil suit is pending
between the parties as applicant has filed a suit for declaration of title in respect
of property in dispute against legal representatives of Shyamlal i.e. respondent
Nos. 1-10.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that since
in the suit filed by Shyamlal i.e. RCSA No. 11A of 2012, it was specifically
held that applicant is the owner and landlord of the property in dispute and in
the suit filed by applicant which was registered as Civil Suit No. 12A of 2012,
decree for eviction was passed against the tenants i.e. respondent Nos.11-14
and the said decree has already been executed and possession was given to
applicant, this Court is of considered opinion that the Rent Controlling
Authority committed material illegality by holding that Shyamlal or his legal
representatives are landlord and are entitled for an order of eviction.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12129
11. However, there is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight
of. It is submitted by applicant that earlier applicant had filed a suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction against Shyamlal, as well as, Inder
Chand Jain and Nemi Chand Jain in respect of the entire property. The said
suit was decreed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, Shyam Lal preferred First Appeal which was allowed by this Court and
the judgment and decree passed by trial Court was set aside. Being aggrieved
by the judgment passed by the High Court, applicant has preferred Civil Appeal
No. 3160-3161 of 2012 and in that civil appeal, an interim order was passed. It
is submitted that the Civil Appeal is still pending.
12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that when
the controversy with regard to title is already pending before the Supreme
Court, then no useful purpose would be served by disturbing the status quo
existing as on today. Accordingly, it is held that the parties shall maintain
status quo till final decision in Civil Appeal No.3160-3161 of 2012 and further
proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority shall remain stayed till final
decision in Civil Appeal No.3160-3161 of 2012 and after final disposal of the
aforesaid appeal, Rent Controlling Authority shall proceed further in
accordance with law.
13. With aforesaid observations, the civil revision is finally disposed of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
