Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhannu vs Aihteshyam Akhtar on 12 November, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57405
1 SA-2099-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 12th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2099 of 2025
CHHANNU
Versus
AIHTESHYAM AKHTAR
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Verma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This second appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant/tenant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2025 passed by 4th District
Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in RCA No.25/2024 affirming the judgment
and decree dated 08.04.2024 passed by First Civil Judge Junior Division,
Khandwa in RCSA - 192/2018 whereby both the Courts below have
concurrently decreed the suit for eviction on the grounds available under
Section 12(1)(a) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in
short "the Act").
2 . As has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant, there is a
relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and both the
Courts below have also found so and since the defendant did not pay
monthly rent as per provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act and the plaintiff is
in need of the rented premises for residential purpose, therefore, both the
Courts below have decreed the suit.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57405
2 SA-2099-2025
3. 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.
4. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
prays for withdrawal of this second appeal and prays for one year time to
vacate the rented premises, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for
the respondent/plaintiff.
5. In view of the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant,
however by declining interference in the impugned judgment and decree
passed by Courts below, this Court deems fit to grant time for vacating the
rented premises upto 15.11.2026 on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the rented
premises on or before 15.11.2026.
(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
rented premises to anybody and shall not change nature of the
same.
(iv) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall furnish an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57405
3 SA-2099-2025
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 rented premises on
or before 15.11.2026 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 appellant/defendant/tenant
shall not be entitled for further extension of time after 15.11.2026.
6 . With the aforesaid conditions, this second appeal is hereby
dismissed as withdrawn.
7 . Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Hashmi
