Abhilash Narayna Katakwar vs Thakur Venkatesh Bahgwan Mandir ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9670 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Abhilash Narayna Katakwar vs Thakur Venkatesh Bahgwan Mandir ... on 24 September, 2025

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48779




                                                               1                                    SA-932-2009
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                                SECOND APPEAL No. 932 of 2009
                                     ABHILASH NARAYNA KATAKWAR
                                                Versus
                          THAKUR VENKATESH BAHGWAN MANDIR BAIKUNTH MANDAP
                                    NAZAR BAG AYODHYA AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                             Shri Subodh Gautam with Shri Aishwarya Sahu - Advocates for the appellant.

                                                                   ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant 2 challenging the judgment and decree dtd.25.06.2009 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad in Civil Appeal No.15-A/2009 reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 24.10.2005 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No.15- A/2001, whereby trial Court dismissed the respondent 1/plaintiff's suit for eviction filed on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a), (b)&(m) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") and in civil appeal

filed by the respondent 1/plaintiff, First Appellate Court has by reversing the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, decreed the suit on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.

2. As has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant and has been found by First Appellate Court, the plaintiff is not registered Public Trust and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48779

2 SA-932-2009 defendant/tenant has not paid rent, despite service of notice of demand and also sublet the rented premises to the appellant.

3. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on 12.05.2015 on the following substantial questions of law :-

"(1) Whether, the Court below was right in holding that although Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act grants exemption to the public trust from the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, even then, the plaintiff/Public Trust can maintain the suit under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act ?

(2) Whether, the Court below was right in holding that the appellant was inducted by respondent No.2 as sub-tenant, specifically when the respondent No.1 did not take any action for five years long ?"

4. Even after arguing at length, 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 and prays for withdrawal of this second appeal upon granting time upto 31.12.2026 to vacate the rented premises. Here, no one is appearing to oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant.

5. In view of prayer made by learned counsel for 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 rented premises upto 31.12.2026 on the following conditions :-

(i) The appellant/defendant shall vacate the rented premises on or before 31.12.2026.

(ii) The appellant/defendant shall regularly pay monthly rent to the respondent/landlord and shall also clear all the dues, if any, including the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48779

3 SA-932-2009 costs of the litigation, if any, imposed by Courts below, within a period of 30 days.

(iii) The appellant/defendant shall not part with the rented premises to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.

(iv) The appellant/defendant 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 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 does not vacate the rented 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.

(vii) It is made clear that the appellant/defendant shall not be entitled for further extension of time after 31.12.2026.

6. With the aforesaid observations, 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