Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Kuamr Gupta vs Geeta Mandal on 18 September, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46683
1 SA-89-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 18 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 89 of 2010
NARENDRA KUAMR GUPTA
Versus
GEETA MANDAL
Appearance:
Shri Deependra Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2009 passed by 3rd Addl.
District Judge, Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur in civil appeal no.74-A/2009
affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2009 passed by 3rd Civil Judge
Class-I, Chhatarpur in civil suit no.208-A/2008, whereby Courts below have
concurrently decreed the suit for eviction on the grounds available under Section
12(1)(a) & (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. As has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, there
is no dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and
the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the rented shop on rent of Rs.300/- per
month and even after institution of the suit for eviction, the defendant did not pay
the monthly rent as per Section 13(1) of the Act. Both the Courts below upon due
consideration of the entire material available on record have also found the
respondent/plaintiff's need to be genuine and decreed the suit on the grounds
available under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act.
3. This second appeal, preferred by the appellant/defendant, was admitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46683
2 SA-89-2010
for final hearing on 04.05.2010 on the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether the Courts below are justified in law in granting the decree of
eviction against the defendant for arrears of rent and also for bonafide
need ?"
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. After arguing at length and in view of the undisputed position that the
defendant has not deposited the monthly rent as per Section 13(1) of the Act and
further in view of the aforesaid settled legal position about findings recorded on
the question of bonafide requirement, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
prays for withdrawal of this second appeal and prays for time to vacate the suit
shop upto 31.12.2026, which is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/plaintiff.
6. Upon due consideration and there being no opposition to the prayer made
on behalf of the appellant, although 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 31.12.2026 on the following conditions :-
(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the suit shop 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 Courts below, within a period of 30
days.
(iii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall not part with the suit shop to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46683
3 SA-89-2010
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 suit shop 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.
(vii) It is made clear that the appellant/defendant/tenant shall not be entitled
for further extension of time after 31.12.2026.
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
pb
