Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammed Yaseen vs Smt. Shakuntala Bai on 17 September, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46305
1 SA-894-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 894 of 2010
MOHAMMED YASEEN
Versus
SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI
Appearance:
Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin - Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2010 passed by District
Judge, District Burhanpur in Civil Appeal No.35-A/2009 affirming the
judgment and decree dated 25.10.2008 passed by Additional Judge to the
Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Burhanpur in Civil Suit No.24-A/2007,
whereby both the Courts below have concurrently decreed the
respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement
of shop available on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), which was filed on
the grounds under Section 12(1)(c) &(f) of the Act.
2. In the present case, as has been stated by learned counsel for the
appellant, both the Courts below have concurrently found that there is no
dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46305
2 SA-894-2010
the suit has been decreed on the ground of bonafide requirement of
respondent/plaintiff's son and it has also been found that there is no other
alternative suitable vacant accommodation available with the
respondent/plaintiff in the township of Burhanpur.
3. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on 18.02.2014 on
the following substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether the learned Courts below are justified in
passing the impugned judgment and decree for eviction
on the ground of Section 12(1)(f) of the MP
Accommodation Act, 1961, inspite of the fact that the
availability of suitable accommodation for the
neighborhood of plaintiff landlord shop available to the
plaintiff.
2. Whether the learned Courts below are justified in
passing the impugned judgment and decree, inspite of
the fact that the plaintiff is not the sole and absolute
owner of the suit property ?"
4. 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.
5. Although, learned counsel for the appellant has criticized the
findings recorded by Courts below regarding bonafide requirement of the suit
shop and non availability of alternative suitable vacant accommodation, but
even after arguing at length learned counsel for the appellant has not been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46305
3 SA-894-2010
able to point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of
facts recorded by Courts below and he prays for withdrawal of this second
appeal and prays for one year time to vacate the suit shop.
6. Upon due consideration and there being no opposition to the prayer
made on behalf of 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 suit shop upto 30.09.2026 on the following
conditions :-
(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the tenanted premises
on or before 30.09.2026.
(ii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall regularly pay monthly rent to
the respondent/plaintiff/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 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 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 tenanted premises on or before 30.09.2026 and creates
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46305
4 SA-894-2010
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 30.09.2026.
7. With the aforesaid observations and declining interference in the
impugned judgment and decree, this second appeal is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn and disposed of.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
