Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gram Sewa Samiti vs Hemlata on 26 June, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
SA No.177/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON 26TH OF JUNE, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 177 of 2000
GRAM SEWA SAMITI
Versus
SMT. HEMLATA PATNI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Naveen Kumar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Gyanendra Singh Baghel - Advocate for respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2000 passed by Second
Additional District Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge,
Chhindwara in civil appeal No.5-A/1999 affirming the judgment and decree
dated 13.11.1995 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Chhindwara in civil suit
No.12-A/1993 whereby both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit
for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of her daughter-Maya Patni
for starting computer business, available under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. In the present case there is no dispute that the appellant/defendant is
tenant of respondent/plaintiff on rent of Rs.450/- per month. Both the Courts
below have upon due appreciation of entire evidence found that the plaintiff's
daughter Maya Patni is in need of suit shop for starting business of computer
centre and decreed the suit for eviction of shop admeasuring 25' X 30' = 750
sq.ft. At the same time, both the Courts below have also recorded findings that
there is no other alternative accommodation available with the
respondent/plaintiff in the township of Chhindwara.
3. Against the judgment and decree passed by Courts below, instant second
appeal was filed, which vide order dated 23.06.2000 was admitted for final
hearing on the following substantial questions of law :-
"(1) Whether the lower appellate Court adopted totally illegal and
irregular procedure in refusing to allow the amendment in the written
statement filed by the appellant on the basis of subsequent events to the
effect that alternative accommodation in the shape of two shops; one in
the name of Janta Opticals run by Virendra Jain; and another shop in the
name of Dipak Tailor run by Bhaskar Rao fell vacant ?
(2) Whether the appellate Court was further wrong in permitting the
respondent to lead evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to sustain her case even in absence of any amendment in the
written statement that the vacant house initially run in the name of Janta
Opticals did not belong to respondent without giving any opportunity to
the appellant to rebut the additional evidence led at the appellate stage ?"
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an application under Order
VI Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement was filed before first
appellate Court with the contention that the plaintiff has come in possession of
two shops vacated by Virendra Jain and Bhaskar Rao, but he has not been able
to point out any material on record to show that these two shops belong to
plaintiff and has also not been able to show any illegality in the findings
recorded by first appellate Court to the effect that these shops do not belong to
the plaintiff.
5. 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.
6. After arguing at length and in the light of legal position settled by Hon'ble
Supreme Court and in view of the concurrent judgment and decree passed by
Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant prays for withdrawal
of this second appeal and further prays for grant of one year time i.e. upto
30.06.2026 to vacate the suit shop, which is not disputed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/plaintiff/landlord.
7. In view of prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and declining
interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below, this
Court deems fit to grant time for vacating the suit shop/tenanted premises upto
30.06.2026 on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the suit shop on or
before 30.06.2026.
(ii) The appellant/defendant/tenant 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 appellant/defendant/tenant shall not part with the suit
shop to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.
(iv) The appellant/defendant/tenant 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 appellant/defendant/tenant fails 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 appellant/defendant/tenant
does not vacate the suit shop on or before 30.06.2026 and creates any
obstruction, appellant 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 appellant/defendant/tenant shall not
be entitled for further extension of time after 30.06.2026.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is hereby
dismissed/disposed off as withdrawn.
9. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
