Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ayodhya Singh vs Lalit Agrawal on 17 September, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 SA-68-2010
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. 68 of 2010
AYODHYA SINGH
Versus
LALIT AGRAWAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri G.S. Baghel, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Sanjana Sahni and Ms. Arti Namdeo, counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
This second appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant 2- Ayodhya
Singh (dead) through LRs, challenging the judgment and decree dated
21.10.2009 passed by Third Addl. District Judge, Satna in Civil Appeal
No.46-A/2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2005 passed
by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Satna in Civil Suit No.398-A/2000, whereby
both the courts below have concurrently decreed the original plaintiff-Smt.
Kunti Devi Agrawal (now dead) through LRs'. suit on the ground of
bonafide requirement of her two sons Lalit Agrawal and Pramod Agrawal for
starting furniture business available under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), however, refused to
pass decree of eviction on the ground under section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the
Act.
2. In the present case, as has been stated by learned counsel for the
2 SA-68-2010
appellants, there is no dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant
amongst the parties and undisputedly the defendants 1-2, Kedar Singh and
Ayodhya Prasad Singh were inducted as tenants in the suit shop
admeasuring 350 Sq.ft. on rent of Rs.275/- p.m. Both the courts below have
concurrently held that the plaintiff is in need of suit shop for starting
business by her sons and there is no other suitable vacant alternative
accommodation available with the plaintiff and her sons, in the township of
Satna.
3. This second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant 2- Ayodhya
Prasad Singh was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial
questions of law :-
"(i) Whether the suit filed for bonafide need by the
landlord of eviction can be said to be proved due to non-
examination of plaintiff and whether the evidence of Mukhtyar is
sufficient to prove the suit, which was filed for eviction on the
ground of bonafide need ?
(ii) Whether the trial court has justified in ignoring the
ratio laid down in Janki Vasudeo Vs. Indue Sindhu Bank Limited
and others-2005(1) MPLJ 421 ?"
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
3 SA-68-2010
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 appellants has criticized the findings
recorded by the courts below regarding bonafide requirement of the
plaintiff's sons and non-availability of suitable alternative vacant
accommodation with the plaintiff, but even after arguing at length and in
presence of joint need of Pramod Kumar as well as Lalit Agrawal and
examination of Pramod Kumar Agrawal (P.W.1), has not been able to point
out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the
courts below and he prays for withdrawal of the second appeal upon granting
time of one year i.e upto 30.09.2026 to vacate the suit shop, which is not
disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Upon due consideration and there being no opposition to the prayer made
on behalf of the appellants, 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 appellants/defendants/tenants shall vacate the suit shop on or
before 30.09.2026.
(ii) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall regularly pay monthly rent
to the respondents/plaintiffs/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.
4 SA-68-2010
(iii) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall not part with the suit shop
to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.
(iv) The appellants/defendants/tenants 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 appellants/defendants/tenants fail to comply with any of the
aforesaid conditions, the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords shall be free to
execute the decree forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellants/defendants/tenants
do not vacate the suit shop on or before 30.09.2026 and create any
obstruction, they 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 appellants/defendants/tenants shall not be
entitled for further extension of time after 30.09.2026.
7. In view of the aforesaid, interference in the impugned judgment and
decree is declined and this second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and
disposed of.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
MKL
