Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwat vs Smt. Hamida Bano Mohd. Suleman on 20 June, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26764
1 SA-1179-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1179 of 2016
BHAGWAT
Versus
SMT. HAMIDA BANO MOHD. SULEMAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P. Khare and Shri Hemant Chouhan - Advocates for the appellant
Ms. Chhaya Maravi - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant 1-
Bhagwat challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2016 passed by
1st Addl. District Judge, Burhanpur, in civil appeal no.03A/2011 affirming
the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2010 passed by Addl. Judge to the
Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Burhanpur, in civil suit no.18-A/2009
whereby Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit for eviction filed
by respondent 1/plaintiff on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a) & (e)/(n) of
the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that ascendants
of the appellant-Bhagwat purchased the suit property vide registered sale
deed dated 24.05.1957 (Ex.P/3) from Dalpat, who is said to have been
inducted as tenant in the accommodation by way of rent note dated
12.03.1949 (Ex.P/2) executed by him in favour of Rao Bahadur
Balkrishnarao Shyamrao Farrashkhanewale Saheb, but there is no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26764
2 SA-1179-2016
documentary evidence available on record regarding payment of rent by
Dalpat or by Hirachand and the Courts below only on the weakness of the
case of defendant and as the defendant has taken inconsistent pleas, have
committed illegality in decreeing the suit that too without taking care of the
fact that the disputed property is not identifiable and the plaintiffs have not
shown correct boundaries. He submits that on the basis of available
evidence, suit could not have been decreed. With these submissions, he prays
for admission of the second appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1/plaintiff supports
the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below and prays for
dismissal of the second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Undisputedly, the suit property belonged to Balkrishnarao and by
way of rent note dated 12.03.1949 (Ex.P/2) one Dalpat was inducted as
tenant, from whom the defendant is claiming rights in the suit property by
way of registered sale deed dated 24.05.1957 (Ex.P/3), whereby Dalpat had
transferred only superstructure standing on the disputed land.
6. The plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the descendants
of Balkrishnarao vide registered sale deed dated 23.01.1990 (Ex.P/1) and
claiming herself to be owner and landlord of the suit property instituted the
suit for eviction on the ground of defaults in making payment of rent and
bonafide requirement of residence.
7. Both the Courts below upon due consideration of the material
available on record have found that there is relationship of landlord and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26764
3 SA-1179-2016
tenant in between the parties and the defendant has not been able to prove his
case of adverse possession and consequently decreed the suit on the grounds
available under Section 12(1)(a) & (e)/(n) of the Act.
8. Upon due consideration of the material available on record, this
Courts does not find any illegality in the concurrent judgment and decree of
eviction passed by Courts below.
9. Consequently, in absence of any substantial question of law, this
second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
