Madhya Pradesh High Court
Udairaj vs Shri Pnachayati Akhada Mahanirvani ... on 18 September, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46730
1 SA-675-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 18th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 675 of 2010
UDAIRAJ
Versus
SHRI PNACHAYATI AKHADA MAHANIRVANI GODADPURA
(OMKARESHWAR)
Appearance:
Shri Sarvesh Jaiswal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Umesh Shrivastava along with Ms. Neelima Seth & Ms. Sana Khan -
Advocates for the respondent.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2010 passed by First
Additional District Judge, Khandwa, East Nimar in Civil Appeal No.60-
A/2009 reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2004 passed by Third
Civil Judge Class-II, Khandwa in Civil Suit No.45-A/2004, whereby trial
Court dismissed the respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction filed against the
appellant/defendant and in civil appeal filed by respondent/plaintiff, First
Appellate Court has decreed the suit for eviction under general provisions of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
2. In view of the admissions made by appellant/defendant himself in
previously instituted suit (Ex.P/14), there is no dispute about relationship of
landlord and tenant in between the parties and admittedly the defendant was
inducted as a tenant in the rented shop. Although, trial Court dismissed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46730
2 SA-675-2010
suit for eviction, but in view of termination/ determination of tenancy of the
defendant by the respondent/plaintiff by issuance of registered notice dated
10.01.1995 (Ex.P/3) and there being no illegality in the notice, First
Appellate Court has decreed the suit for eviction.
3. Instant second appeal was preferred by the appellant/defendant,
which was admitted for final hearing on 10.02.2016 on the following
substantial questions of law :-
"1. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court
based on correct appreciation of evidence and law,
rightly and justifiably has been reversed by the learned
lower appellate court ?
2. Whether the lower appellate court rightly held the
respondent/plaintiff a juristic person and held that its
secretary is competent to file the suit against the
appellant ?
3. Whether the instant civil suit of respondent/plaintiff
duly has been filed as per Order 7 Rule 4 C.P.C ?
4. Whether in absence of any legal proof of existence
of relation of landlord and tenant between the appellant
and respondent in respect of disputed shop, the lower
appellate court erred in passing decree of eviction and
arrears of rent in favour of respondent ?"
4 . Even after arguing at length but in view of admissions made by
defendant/appellant in previously instituted suit (Ex.P/14), learned counsel
for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in
the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court and having faced
with this situation, he prays for withdrawal of this second appeal and prays
for time up to 31.12.2026 to vacate the suit shop, which is not disputed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46730
3 SA-675-2010
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. 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 First Appellate Court, this Court
deems fit to grant time for vacating the suit shop upto 31.12.2026 on the
following conditions :-
(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the tenanted premises
on or before 31.12.2026.
(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 Court 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 31.12.2026. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46730
4 SA-675-2010
(vii) It is made clear that the appellant/defendant/tenant shall not be
entitled for further extension of time after 31.12.2026.
6. With the aforesaid observations and declining interference in the
impugned judgment and decree, this second appeal is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn and disposed of.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
