Madhya Pradesh High Court
Noor Kha vs Ramzan on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
1 S.A. No.599/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
SECOND APPEAL No. 599 of 2025
NOORKHAN
Versus
RAMZAN
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Anand Rathore - Advocate for the
appellant/defendant.
Shri Vishwambhar Varangaorkar - Advocate for
the respondent/plaintiff.
Reserved on : 25/09/2025
Delivered on : 09/10/2025
==========================================
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 09-10-2025
18:45:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
2 S.A. No.599/2025
JUDGMENT
Heard on the question of admission.
This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has
been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by
the judgement and decree dated 14/05/2024 passed by 2nd
District Judge, Khategaon, District-Dewas (M.P) in First
Appeal RCA No.02/2021 arising out of the judgment and
decree dated 14/12/2020 passed by Civil Judge Class-II,
Khategaon, District-Dewas in Civil Suit No.RCS/
A-300021/2016 which was set-aside.
Facts of the case, in short are as under :-
2. The facts of the case presented on behalf of the
respondent/plaintiff were that the father of the
respondent/plaintiff (Ramzan Khan) and the father of the
appellant/defendant (Karim Khan) father's name was Peer
Khan. Karim Khan and Ramzan Khan were real brothers. It
has been about 65 years since Peer Khan's death. During his
lifetime, Peer Khan divided his movable and immovable
property. House No.24, Gandhi Marg was given to Karim
Khan and House No.25, Gandhi Marg was given to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
plaintiff Ramzan. Similarly, the south side of House No.33,
Tilak Marg, with its Dedh Chashma (one and a half glacial
area) was given to the plaintiff and the north side to Karim
Khan. Thus, the respondent/plaintiff's name was transferred
to Building No.25, Mahatma Gandhi Marg. The southern
half of House No.33, Tilak Marg, as House No.33/2, was
registered in the plaintiff's name in the Municipal
Corporation's official records. It was 9 feet wide from north
to south and 70 feet long from east to west. To the north of
this house of the plaintiff, there was a house of the same
width and length as the share of late Karim Khan, which
after the death of Karim Khan was in the possession and
ownership of appellant/defendant No.1.
3. It was further stated by that the plaintiff/respondent
that the appellant/defendant No.1 being the son of
respondent/plaintiff's brother (Late Karim Khan), needed a
house to set up a cotton ginning machine. The defendant
had taken the said house from the plaintiff on rent of
Rs.250/- per month in January 2006. The defendant has paid
the rent to the plaintiff continuously from the date of rent of
Rs.250/- per month till 31/12/2009. Thereafter, on
17/02/2011, when the plaintiff went to the defendant to ask
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
for the outstanding rent of one year, the defendant got angry
and quarrelled with the plaintiff, a complaint of which was
lodged at Khategaon Police Station. The defendant also
lodged a complaint against the plaintiff, in which the
defendant has admitted taking the disputed house on rent
from the plaintiff at Rs.250/- per month and paying rent to
the plaintiff for 8-10 years.
4. The plaintiff/respondent further alleged that the
plaintiff owed the defendant rent for 06 years and 06
months from January 2010 to June 2016, but since the rent
period from January 2010 to 30 June 2013 was over, the
plaintiff still owed rent of Rs.9,000/- for 36 months from
01/07/2013 to 30/06/2016, which the defendant had not paid
despite demand. It was further contended that the defendant
was violating the condition of tenancy by deliberately
breaking the partition between the two houses of the
plaintiff and the defendant's father without the consent of
the plaintiff. For this reason, the plaintiff was not allowing
the defendant to remain as a tenant in the disputed house.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
5. The plaintiff/respondent further stated that he wished
to open a welding shop for himself and his son, Yusuf Khan,
and since he had a bona fide need for the disputed property,
he issued a notice through his lawyer on 24 April 2016 for
eviction from the disputed property and recovery of the
outstanding rent, terminating the tenancy with effect from
midnight of 30th July 2017. It was further stated that
following receipt of the notice, the appellant/defendant on
11th July 2016, refused to vacate the disputed property and
not paid the outstanding rent. Therefore, he filed a suit to
vacant possession of the disputed property and three years'
outstanding rent of Rs.9,000/- and a monthly payment of
Rs.250/- from the date of claim until the date of payment.
6. The appellant/defendant stated that he presented a
reply in the trial court and rejected all the claims of the
plaint and stated in written statement that the name of the
plaintiff's father was not Peer Khan. The plaintiff's mother
Kallobai came as a wife and had brought along with her the
plaintiff, the son born from her previous husband. Due to
this, plaintiff had no right of any kind in the property of
Peer Khan. Peer Khan was the owner of the disputed house,
after his death in 1954, his only son Karim Khan became
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
the heir, in his healthy state he executed a will in favour of
his wife Gulabbai on 22/08/1993 in front of witnesses. After
the death of Karim Khan in the year 1994, as per the said
will, Karim Khan's wife Gulab Bai became his sole heir and
after the death of Gulab Bai, his nine sons Rasool Khan
(deceased), Mohammad Khan (deceased), Noor Khan
(defendant), Naseer Khan, Abdul Khan, Bhure Khan, Azad
Khan, Shahzad Khan, Fariyaad Khan, daughter Baskar Bai
resident of Tehsil Harsud became the heirs in whose
possession the disputed house had been running.
7. The appellant/defendant also alleged that in the
disputed house and shop, all the brothers had a cotton
ginning machine, oil mill, a shop for buying cotton and a
jewellery shop. The shop was never partitioned nor did the
defendant take the said portion on rent from the plaintiff.
Even if the plaintiff fraudulently got the house transferred in
the Nagar Panchayat Khategaon, it is ineffective and he did
not get any right from it. The owners of the disputed house
were the defendant and his brother, the heirs of the deceased
brother. Without making them all parties, the claim
presented was not maintainable. Therefore, as the plaintiff's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
case was false and baseless, it had been requested to dismiss
it without any expenses.
8. That on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the
learned Trial Court thereafter has proceeded with suit by
framing the following issues:-
क्र. वाद प्रश्न निष्कर्ष
1 क्या निलकमागष खािेगाां व में स्थिि भवि कमाां क 33/2 में प्रमानिि
प्रनिवादी 250/- रूपये प्रनिमाह का वादी का नकराये दार है
?
2 क्या प्रनिवादी द्वारा पूवष में वादी को भवि स्वामी स्वीकार अप्रमानिि
नकए जािे के कारि इस मामले में इस्टोपल का नसद्ाां ि
प्रभावशील है । यनद हाां िो प्रभाव ?
3 क्या प्रनिवादी से वादी का उक्त भवि का नदिाां क प्रमानिि
01.07.2013 से 30.06.2016 िक का नकराया लेिा अवशेर्
है ?
4 क्या वादी को नववानदि भवि अपिे पु त्र के वे स्थडांग प्रमानिि
व्यवसाय प्रारां भ करिे है , सद्भावी आवश्यकिा है ?
5 क्या वादी उक्त भवि को प्रनिवादी से अपिे पु त्र की वे स्थडांग प्रमानिि
दु काि के व्यवसाय प्रारां भकरिे हे िु ररक्त करािे का
अनिकारी है ?
6. क्या वादी प्रनिवादी से अवशेर् नकराया 9,000/- रूपये व अांशि
अन्तरविी लाभ पािे का पात्र है ? प्रमानिि
7. सहायिा एवां खर्चे। कांनिका कुां 34
अिुसार।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
8. क्या प्रनिवादी, वादी के स्वानमत्व के नववानदि मकाि में प्रमानिि
250/- रूपये प्रनिमाह की दर से नकराये दार हैं ?
9. क्या प्रनिवादी िे माां ग सू र्चिापत्र की िानमली के दो माह के प्रमानिि
भीिर वैि रूप से वसूली योग्य अवशेर् नकराया वादी को
अदा िही ां नकया है ?
10. क्या प्रनिवादी िे िारा 13 (1) म.प्र. िाि नियांत्रि अनिनियम प्रमानिि
1961 के प्राविािोां का पालि िहीां नकया है ?
9. That after hearing the argument and perusing the oral
and documentary evidence available on record, the learned
trial court allowed the suit and decreed the suit in favour of
plaintiff/ respondent vide judgment and decree dated
14/12/2020.
10. Thus, the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the
said judgment and decree filed First Appeal under Section
96 CPC. The question for consideration framed before the
learned First Appellate Court are as under :-
1. "Whether the plaintiff and the defendant have
the relationship of landlord and tenant in
respect of the disputed house at the rate of
Rs.250/- per month?
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
2. Whether the defendant has not paid the rent
despite the plaintiff duly serving a notice
demanding the outstanding rent amount has
been given?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
eviction under Section 12(1)(C) of the Land
Acquisition and Settlement Control Act on
account of the defendant's denial of title to the
plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiff has a bona fide need of
the disputed house for his own and his son's
business?
5. Does the plaintiff have no other suitable
place available for business?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the
outstanding rent amounting to Rs.9,000/- and
the rent amount as interim benefit from the
defendant?
7. Whether the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff for
eviction and payment of arrears of rent are
liable to be set aside as being contrary to facts
and law?
8. Aid and expenses"?
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
11. The learned First Appellate Court, affirming the
judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court rejected the
First Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant. Being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree,
respondent/plaintiff filed the present second appeal before
this Court.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
contended that the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Courts below are liable to be set-aside, as it is
contrary to law and legislation. It is further submitted that
the learned Courts below have not observed the documents
and evidence filed on behalf of the appellant/defendant and
have not even properly appreciated them. It was further
submitted that the learned Appellate Court has also
committed a serious mistake in understanding the nature of
the case, hence the judgement and decree passed by the
Courts below are liable to be quashed. It is also submitted
that the appellant/defendant has proved with documentary
evidence that the appellant/defendant has possession over
the disputed land which was obtained on the basis of family
partition and the said possession has been in practice
continuously without interruption before the cause of action
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
arose, but on the said fact the learned First Appellate Court
and the learned Trial Court have given contradictory
opinion and passed a judgement contrary to the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. It was further stated the
appellant/respondent has proved by their evidence that the
respondent/plaintiff is trying to illegally occupy the
disputed property/house.
13. It was further averred that the learned First Appellate
Court did not accept the Will of the appellant/defendant
grandfather. It was further stated that the learned First
Appellate Court has interpreted the provisions of M.P. Land
Revenue Code in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and has
passed a judgment in an unjust and illegal manner which is
liable to be set aside.
14. Following substantial question were proposed by the
appellant / defendant :-
"1. Whether the subordinate appellate court
has committed an error in interpreting the law
by confirming the decision of the subordinate
trial court?
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
2. Whether the will executed by the late
shri Peer kha is on record but the trial court
disbelieve and hence the legal mistakes has
been committed by subordinate courts?
3. Whether the subordinate courts have
committed statutory error in rejecting the
appeal by wrongly considering the Nagar
Parishad documents as evidence?
4. Whether the subordinate courts
committed a grave error in interpreting the
concept of the Evidence Act?
5. Is the Hon'ble High Court free to frame
other substantial questions of law?"
15. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant/defendant and supports the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First
Appellate Court.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
16. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties at
length and perused the entire records.
17. It has been rightly observed by the First Appellate
Court that the appellant/defendant has not produced any
documentary evidence of ownership of the disputed house.
In contrast, the respondent/plaintiff submitted Exhibits
(P/17 and P/18) showing that on 30/04/1992 Ramzan and
Karim Khan (defendant's father) executed affidavits stating
that their father, Peer Khan, died about 40 years earlier, and
that Houses No.24, 25, and 33 were mutated in Peer Khan's
name with Khategaon Municipality. The property was
partitioned giving Ramzan the right-hand portion of House
No.33 (Plaintiff) and Karim Khan the left-hand portion
(defendant's father). The respondent/plaintiff name was
thereafter mutated as House No.33/2. The Municipal
Council issued a questionnaire (Exhibit P/1) on 01/10/1992,
with receipts as Exhibits P/2-P/9.
18. It has been further rightly observed by the learned
First Appellate Court that in cross-examination Noor Khan
(DW/1) admitted typing Exhibit P/11 and submitting it to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
the Police Station and filing an affidavit (Exhibit P/12) in
Case No.3/11 before the Sub-Divisional Revenue Officer,
with cross-examination marked as Exhibit P/13. He also
admitted learning in 2011 that his father had registered
Ramzan's name on half of House No.33 recorded as House
No.33/2. Although the defendant denied suggestions of the
respondent/plaintiff, both documentary and oral evidence
show that the house has been registered in the plaintiff's
name since 1992 after partition. The defendant continues to
occupy it as a tenant at Rs.250/- per month. The Trial Court
correctly held the appellant/defendant to be the
respondent/plaintiff's tenant without error of fact or law.
19. It has been further rightly observed by the learned
First Appellate Court that witness Ramzan (PW/1) stated
that he rented the disputed house to the defendant in 2006
for Rs.250/- per month. The appellant/defendant stopped
paying rent from January 2010 and Ramzan demanded
payment on 17/02/2011, which the appellant/defendant
disputed. A notice for recovery and eviction was issued on
24/04/2016, terminating the tenancy effective 30/07/2016.
This notice is Exhibit P/16, with postal receipt Exhibit P/15
and acknowledgement Exhibit P/14. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
appellant/defendant gave a false reply and did not hand-
over possession on 11/07/2016. Exhibits P/14 to P/16 show
that the respondent/plaintiff sent a notice on 23/05/2016 to
appellant/defendant Noor Khan demanding outstanding rent
and require vacant possession. The appellant/defendant did
not cross-examine to rebut this, confirming that a duly valid
notice was given, yet the appellant/defendant failed to pay
rent or vacate the house.
20. It was further rightly held by the First Appellate
Court that Ramzan Khan (PW/1) testified that he requires
the disputed house to open a welding shop for himself and
his son, Yusuf and has no other suitable place for business.
Yusuf (PW/2) confirmed he currently works as a puncture
repairer and wishes to start a welding machine business but
has no other space available. Anil (PW/3) supported these
statements. Defendant witness Noor Khan (DW/1) only
asserted that Yusuf already has a shop at the Municipal Bus
Stand and therefore does not require the disputed house. In
cross-examination, Ramzan (PW/1) admitted his son has a
puncture repair shop at the Nagar Panchayat Bus Stand but
denied that Yusuf does welding there. He stated he has four
sons--two working on Lathe Machines and two doing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
puncture repair--and denied having three shops at Nagar
Panchayat. Yusuf (PW/2) gave similar testimony in cross-
examination.
21. It was further observed by the learned First Appellate
Court that the appellant/defendant produced no
documentary evidence showing that the respondent/plaintiff
has another suitable business place in Khategaon nor any
proof that there is no bona fide need. The Court found that
the respondent/plaintiff has established a bona fide need for
the disputed premises for his own and his sons' business
purposes. The Trial Court correctly recorded findings on
Issues No.4 and 5 in the plaintiff's favour without error of
fact or law. Further it is established that the defendant is a
tenant of the disputed house in Bandi at Rs.250/- per month.
The appellant/defendant denied the respondent/plaintiff's
ownership and failed to produce rent receipts or evidence of
payment. Under the Limitation Act, the respodnnet/plaintiff
is entitled to recover rent for three years prior to the suit,
totalling Rs.9,000/- along with on-going rent at Rs.250/- per
month until possession is delivered subject to adjustment
for any rent already deposited. Issue No.6 is accordingly
affirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
22. The appellant argued that documents submitted under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC proves that the plaintiff is not the
owner, alleging that the name was registered in Nagar
Panchayat without authority and sought remand of the case.
However, this application was dismissed on 20/06/2022,
making such documents inadmissible before the learned
First Appellate Court. It has been further observed that the
Trial Court properly held that the appellant/defendant was
the respondent/plaintiff's tenant, failed to pay rent despite
valid notice and denied ownership. This established grounds
under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Act
1961. Thus the Trial Court committed no error in granting
eviction and recovery of outstanding rent in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff.
23. The findings thus arrived by the learned First
Appellate Court is correct and justified by cogent reasons
and does not require any interference by this Court.
24. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and upon
due consideration of material available on record and
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in numerous occasions in catena of judgments, this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29632
does not find any illegality in the judgment and decree of
the learned First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of
the appellant/defendant.
25. Resultantly in absence of any substantial question of
law for determination, this Second Appeal fails and is
hereby dismissed. The findings of learned First Appellate
Court is accordingly upheld.
26. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands
disposed off accordingly.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*
ST
