Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu vs Deepak on 17 October, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53066
1 SA-1478-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1478 of 2024
PAPPU
Versus
DEEPAK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Rusia - Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.Nos.14305/2025, 14306/2025 & 14307/2025.
2. Aforesaid three applications have been filed for substitution of LRs
of sole appellant - Pappu.
3. Upon due consideration, all the three applications are allowed with
the direction to learned counsel for the appellant to carryout necessary
substitution in the memo of appeal during the course of the day.
4. Accordingly, I.A.Nos. 14305/2025, 14306/2025 & 14307/2025 are
allowed/disposed of.
5. Also heard on the question of admission.
6. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant
challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 21.03.2024 passed by Principal
District Judge, District Burhanpur in RCA No.9/2022 affirming the judgment
and decree dtd. 09.02.2022 passed by Second Civil Judge Senior Division,
District Burhanpur in Civil Suit No.800101-A/2016 whereby both the Courts
below have concurrently decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for eviction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53066
2 SA-1478-2024
on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a),(e),(f)&(h) of the M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
7. Although, by filing written statement, the appellant/defendant
disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the parties, but upon
due consideration of the entire material available on record, both the Courts
below have concurrently held that there is a relationship of landlord and
tenant amongst the parties.
8. Both the Courts below have upon due consideration also found that
the defendant is in arrears of rent and the plaintiffs are in need of the rented
premises for composite need of residence and business and also require the
same for rebuilding. Further, there is no other alternative accommodation
available with the plaintiffs, in the township of Burhanpur.
9. 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.
10. Even after arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellant has
not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment and decree passed by Courts below and faced with this situation,
prays for withdrawal of this second appeal upon granting time of one year to
vacate the rented premises.
11. In view of aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the appellant,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53066
3 SA-1478-2024
however declining interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed
by Courts below, this second appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and time
upto 15.10.2026 is hereby granted to vacate the rented premise on the
following conditions:-
(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the tenanted premises
on or before 15.10.2026.
(ii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall regularly pay monthly rent to
the respondents/landlords 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 tenanted
premises 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 respondents/landlords shall be free to execute the
decree forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellant/defendant/tenant
does not vacate the tenanted premises on or before 15.10.2026 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 15.10.2026.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53066
4 SA-1478-2024
12. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is hereby
dismissed/disposed of as withdrawn.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
14. However, no order as to the costs.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
