Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Daljeet Singh vs Vipin Minocha on 20 June, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26565
1 SA-107-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 107 of 2025
SHRI DALJEET SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
VIPIN MINOCHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sushant Ranjan - Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2.
ORDER
This appeal was heard and reserved for orders on admission on
13/05/2025.
2. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure is filed by the appellants/defendants who have lost in both
the Courts.
3. Vipin Minocha and others filed a Civil Suit No.40010-
A/2014 against Daljeet Singh and others for the suit property situated
on Nazul Plot No.12/13 and 13/1 Building No.2667 behind City
Hospital near second bridge Nagrath Chowk, Civil Lines, Jabalpur
which is shown in the map in red colour under Section 12(1)(c) and
12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act for eviction and
recovery of balance rent which is decreed by the learned trial Court
vide order dated 10/02/2024. On an appeal i.e. RCA No.91/2024 filed
by the defendants, learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26565
2 SA-107-2025
decree dated 11/12/2024 dismissed the appeal.
4. The appeal has been filed on the ground that the decree
under Section 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation
Control Act could not be granted as plaintiffs are not landlord and
they do not require the suit property bonafidely. Vipin Minocha (PW-
1) admitted in cross-examination that they were minor when the
tenancy was created. Father of the plaintiffs pleaded the title but he
was not examined in Court, therefore, prays for admission.
5. Considered the arguments and perused the pleadings, issues
and evidence and judgment of both the Courts.
6. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the suit property was
purchased by sale-deed (Ex.P/1) on 29/04/1983 from Smt. Pratibha
Lalwani and other in the name of Master Vipin Minocha and
Prashant Minocha S/o M. K. Minocha. It is further seen that
defendants/appellants have paid the rent to the plaintiff party as
reflected from Rent Payment Receipts as exhibited in trial Court. The
finding of fact regarding whether plaintiffs require the suit property
for their own use and they do not have alternative accommodation has
been found proved which in the facts and circumstances of the case,
cannot be interfered as tenancy and payment of rent is further
admitted in reply (Ex.P/10) filed by the defendants' Advocate Shri
Rajeev Methai.
Regarding tenancy between the plaintiffs and defendants, it is
seen that after paying the rent, the tenancy cannot be objected. The
suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that when the suit property
was purchased when plaintiffs were minor and regarding the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26565
3 SA-107-2025
objection that father of plaintiffs was not examined is of no
consequence in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not a
case where the defendants/appellants are claiming title over the suit
property. Defendant No.1 Daljeet Singh in his statement has also
stated that they have taken the suit property on rent from
M.K.Minocha. In cross-examination, they have tried to challenge the
title of Pratibha Lalwani and Usha Lalwani which in the facts and
circumstances of the case as said before is of no consequence as
defendants have been inducted into tenancy by the plaintiffs' father
and now suit has been filed by the plaintiffs after attaining the
majority.
7. In fact, in cross-examination plaintiffs have denied the
knowledge about the pleadings in written statement in cross-
examination in paras 2, 3 & 4. In cross-examination in para-8
defendant has further admitted that earlier in the suit property, there
was their Hero Honda Showroom but about 10 years ago, the same
has been shifted.
8. In view of the aforesaid, it is seen that both the courts have
considered all the factual and legal aspects as per pleadings, issues
and evidence of both the parties, therefore there is nothing by way of
substantial question of law on which this second appeal can be
admitted.
9. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere
with the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme
Court. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or
unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26565
4 SA-107-2025
Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, (2009)
5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2001) 7
SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012) 8
SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288,
Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare,
(2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and
Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264]. The concurrent findings of fact recorded
by the courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence
on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be
perverse or based on no evidence.
10. Thus, in view above analysis, no substantial question of
law arises in this appeal on which it can be admitted. In the result, the
appeal stands dismissed at admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
