Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar vs Santosh Gadhel on 17 September, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
SA 194 of 2001
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. 194 of 2001
RAJENDRA KUMAR
Versus
SANTOSH GADHEL
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Priyank Awasthi - Advocate
for the appellant.
Shri Avinash Zargar and Shri Gouransh Bhurrak - Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2000 passed by 1st
Addl. District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in civil appeal no.25-
A/1997 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1997 passed by
1st Civil Judge Class-II, Khandwa in civil suit no.10-A/1989, whereby
trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of denial of title
available under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control
Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), however refused the eviction on the
ground under Section 12(1)(a) & (f) of the Act, and in civil appeal
filed by the respondent/defendant, First Appellate Court has reversed
the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and dismissed the suit
and at the same time dismissed the cross objection also filed by the
plaintiff seeking eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) & (f) of
the Act.
SA 194 of 2001
2. In short, the facts are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted the
suit for eviction of non-residential rented premises with the allegations
that plaintiff purchased the property including the rented premises vide
registered sale deed dated 06.06.1987 from its owner Sukhdev Yadav
(plaintiff's father), accordingly the plaintiff is owner and landlord
because the defendant is tenant in the premises on rent of Rs.50/- per
month. It is alleged that the plaintiff has purchased the property for
construction of residential house and for this purpose, he has also
obtained permission on 30.05.1988 (Ex.P/4) from Nagar Palik Nigam,
Khandwa and he is having sufficient funds for raising construction and
the same is not possible without vacation of rented premises by the
defendant. It is also alleged that the plaintiff is in need of the rented
premises/shop for starting Kirana business. It is also alleged that
defendant is carrying out flour mill in the rented premises which is
causing nuisance and the defendant has also denied title by alleging
Shri Laxmi Narayan Mandir Trust to be owner of the suit premises. It
is also alleged that despite issuance/service of notice dated 29.10.1988
(Ex.P/6) the defendant has not paid rent with effect from 01.07.1988 to
31.12.1988, hence he is liable to be evicted from the shop. On inter
alia allegations, the suit was filed.
3. The respondent/defendant appeared and filed written
statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that the suit
property belongs to Shri Laxmi Narayan Mandir Trust and the plaintiff
has got a sham sale deed executed through his father Sukhdev Yadav
and in that regard Shri Laxmi Narayan Mandir Trust has already filed
a suit seeking declaration to the effect that defendant is tenant of the
Trust and he be directed to pay rent to the Trust and not to the plaintiff.
SA 194 of 2001
It is denied that the plaintiff is in need of the shop for raising
construction and for starting business, who is already in government
service. It is also denied that the defendant is in arrears of rent or has
caused any nuisance by carrying out the business of flour mill. On
inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed
issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of his case the
plaintiff examined himself-Rajendra Kumar Yadav (PW/1), Sukhdev
(PW/2), Suresh (PW/3), Mangal Singh Thakur (PW/4) and produced
documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/7). In support of his case the
defendant also examined R.C. Shalam (DW/1), Ali Hussain (DW/2),
Natthulal (DW/3), Ranchhod (DW/4), Hukum Chand (DW/5) and
produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/4).
5. After hearing the parties, Trial Court held that there is
relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and decreed
the suit for eviction on the ground of denial of title available under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, however, refused eviction on the grounds
under Section 12(1)(a) & (f) of the Act vide judgment and decree
dated 30.06.1997.
6. Upon filing civil appeal by defendant/tenant, First Appellate
Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.10.2000 reversed
the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and dismissed the
suit in its entirety and at the same time dismissed the cross objection
also filed by the plaintiff in respect of refusal of eviction by Trial
Court on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a) & (f) of the Act.
7. Against the impugned judgment and decree passed by First
Appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff preferred instant second appeal
SA 194 of 2001
which was admitted for final hearing on 10.07.2001 on the following
substantial question of law:-
"Whether the courts below are justified in reversing the
reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial
Court for eviction under Section 12(1)(a),(c) and (f) of
the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and dismissing the
cross appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff."
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Trial Court has
upon due consideration of the entire material available on record and
in view of clear admissions made by defendant in the written statement
about relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties, rightly
decreed the suit for eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of
the Act, but First Appellate Court committed an illegality in reversing
the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by Trial Court solely on
the basis of decision of civil suit no.128A/1994 instituted by Shri
Laxmi Narayan Mandir Trust. With these submissions, he prays for
allowing the second appeal.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant
supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by First Appellate
Court and submits that in the light of decision given by this Court on
03.09.2025 in Second Appeal no.190/2001 (Rajendra Kumar and
others vs. Shri Laxmi Naryan Mandir Trust and another), which arose
out of civil suit no. 128-A/1994, nothing remains to be decided in the
present second appeal. With these submissions, he prays for dismissal
of second appeal.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
SA 194 of 2001
11. In the present case, no document has been placed on record
by the plaintiff showing relationship of landlord and tenant in between
plaintiff's father-Sukhdev Yadav and defendant-Santosh Gadhel.
Further, no document has been placed on record showing ownership of
Sukhdev Yadav in respect of the suit property. Even the original sale
deed which is said to have been executed by Sukhdev Yadav in favour
of his son i.e. plaintiff-Rajendra Kumar, was not placed on record of
the Trial Court, and only a certified copy was placed on record. Taking
into consideration this aspect of the matter, as well as in the light of
decision of civil suit no. 128A/1994, which has been affirmed by this
Court on 03.09.2025 in Second Appeal no.190/2001 preferred by the
plaintiff and his father-Sukhdev Yadav, First Appellate Court has held
that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the
plaintiff and defendant.
12. It is appropriate to mention here that civil suit no. 128-
A/1994 was filed by Shri Laxmi Narayan Mandir Trust against
Rajendra Kumar, Sukhdev Yadav and Santosh Gadhel. This civil suit
was decreed on 15.03.2000 and Civil Appeal filed by Rajendra Kumar
and Sukhdev Yadav was dismissed on 03.10.2000 and Second Appeal
no. 190/2001 filed by them has been dismissed on 03.09.2025.
Relevant paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment dtd.03.09.2025 are as
under :-
"17. In the present case, the defendant 3-Santosh Gadhel has admitted
himself to be a tenant of the plaintiff. Although, he has also admitted
payment of rent to the defendants 1-2, but upon evaluation/appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence available on record, coupled with the
admissions made by the defendant 3-Santosh Gadhel, Courts below have
concluded that there is relationship of landlord and tenant in between the
SA 194 of 2001
plaintiff and defendant 3-Santosh Gadhel, which, in view of the settled
legal position, is a pure finding of fact and is not liable to be interfered
with within the limited scope of second appeal, provided under Section
100 of the CPC.
18. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law has been framed, nor
any prayer with appropriate reasons, has been made before this Court
either orally or by moving application under Section 100(5) of CPC for
framing additional substantial question of law in respect of veracity of the
findings recorded by the Courts below on the question of relationship of
landlord and tenant."
13. From the aforesaid it is clear that in previous suit no. 128-
A/1994, it has been held that the present defendant (Santosh Gadhel) is
not tenant of present plaintiff (Rajendra Kumar) but is tenant of Shri
Laxmi Narayan Mandir Trust, so this finding operates res-judicata
against the plaintiff/appellant in the present suit also. Further, it is well
settled that the finding on the question of relationship of landlord and
tenant, if the same is not perverse, is a pure finding of fact and is not
liable to be interfered with within the limited scope of second appeal
provided under Section 100 of CPC, that too in absence of any
substantial question of law.
14. Even after arguing at length, but in presence of judgment
passed by this Court on 03.09.2025 in Second Appeal no.190/2001,
learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any
illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by
First Appellate Court.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial question
of law formulated by this Court does not arise for consideration, that
SA 194 of 2001
too in absence of any substantial question of law framed in respect of
veracity of the findings regarding relationship of landlord and tenant.
16. Resultantly, second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
