Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Lal Gupta vs Sukhlal Yadav on 1 May, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20312
1 SA-737-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 737 of 2010
RAM LAL GUPTA
Versus
SUKHLAL YADAV
Appearance:
Shri D.N. Shukla and Shri Somesh Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/defendant/tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated
19.04.2010 passed by 2nd Addl. District Judge, Shahdol, in regular civil
appeal no.4-A/2010 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006
passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Shahdol, in civil suit no.16-A/2004 whereby
trial Court dismissed the respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction filed on the
grounds available under Section 12(1)(a),(f) and (h) of the M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short 'the Act') and in civil
appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord, first appellate Court has
reversed the judgment and decree of trial Court and decreed the suit for
eviction although only on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act,
however, affirmed by judgment and decree of trial Court in respect of the
grounds of eviction under Section 12(1)(f) and (h) of the Act.
2. Against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by first
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20312
2 SA-737-2010
appellate Court on the ground of defaults in making payment of rent
available under Section 12 (1)(a) of the Act, the appellant/defendant/tenant
preferred instant second appeal, which was admitted for final hearing on
31.08.2015 on the following substantial question of law.
"Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the
order of the lower Court".
3 . After arguing at length and faced with the situation that even
according to the appellant/defendant, monthly rent was not deposited by the
tenant in accordance with Section 13(1) of the Act, learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant prays for one year time to vacate the shop in question.
4. Despite service of summons and representation of the
respondent/landlord, no one is present to oppose the aforesaid prayer made
by learned counsel for the appellant/tenant.
5 . In view of the aforesaid and declining interference in the impugned
judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court, this Court deems fit to
grant one year time for vacating the rented shop upto 30.04.2026 on the
following conditions : -
(i) The appellant/tenant shall vacate the rented shop on or before
30.04.2026.
(ii) The appellant/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 Court below, within a period of 30
days.
(iii) The appellant/tenant shall not part with the rented shop to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20312
3 SA-737-2010
anybody and shall not change nature of the same.
(iv) The appellant/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/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/tenant does not
vacate the rented shop on or before 30.04.2026 and creates any obstruction,
he 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 defendant/appellant shall not be entitled
for further extension of time after 30.04.2026 .
6 . With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is hereby
dismissed/disposed off as withdrawn.
7 . Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed and
interim relief granted, if any, shall stand vacated.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
