Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rewa Prasad Ahirwar vs Krishna Kumar Choubey on 25 September, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49173
1 SA-1011-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 25th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1011 of 2010
REWA PRASAD AHIRWAR
Versus
KRISHNA KUMAR CHOUBEY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhoop Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant
challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 15/04/2010 passed by 8th
Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.12-A/2009 affirming
the judgment and decree dtd. 29/09/2009 passed by 7th Civil Judge Class-I,
Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.104-A/2008, whereby both the Courts below have
concurrently decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for eviction on the
ground of bonafide requirement of residence available under Section 12(1)(e)
of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. In the present case, both the Courts below have upon due
consideration of the entire material available on record, held that the
defendant is tenant of plaintiffs in the rented premises and the plaintiffs are
in need of the same for residence and there is no other alternative suitable
vacant accommodation with the plaintiffs in the township of Jabalpur.
3. As against the case pleaded by the plaintiffs, the defendant has
come with the case that he has purchased the suit premises from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49173
2 SA-1011-2010
predecessor-in-title - Ashok Kumar Dubey and he is in possession of the
premises as an owner. In absence of any document of sale and even the
agreement of sale, on the basis of which the defendant asserts his ownership,
Courts below have negated the case of defendant and passed decree of
eviction because the plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises from the
same person namely, Ashok Kumar Dubey vide registered sale deed dated
18.08.2003.
4 . This second appeal was preferred by the appellant/defendant and
was admitted for final hearing on 19.12.2011 on the following substantial
questions of law:-
"1. Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in law in
rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of
CPC for taking additional evidence on record ?
2. Whether the Courts below were right in rejecting the
application of the appellant for asserting the real Khasra
number and the situation of the suit house by
appointment of Commissioner ?
3. Whether the Courts below have erred in granting the
decree in favour of respondents/plaintiffs without
appointment of Commissioner for verification and
demarcation of the suit land and the house in view of
the law down by the Supreme Court in Shreepat vs.
Rajendra Prasad and others [JT 2000 (7) 379] and in
view of the decision of this Court in case of Kamal
Singh Vs. Roop Singh [2011 (3) MPLJ 333]?"
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49173
3 SA-1011-2010
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.
6 . Even after arguing at length and in absence of any substantial
question of law in relation to the veracity of findings regarding relationship
of landlord and tenant, so also in respect of the decree of eviction passed on
the ground under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act, especially in the light of the
fact that due to non deposit of rent, defence of the defendant has already
been struck out, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has not been
able to point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by Courts below and prays for withdrawal of this second appeal
upon granting time of one year i.e. upto 30/9/2026, to vacate the rented
premises.
7 . As no one is appearing to oppose the prayer made by learned
counsel for the appellant, therefore, by declining interference in the
impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below, this Court deems fit
to grant time for vacating the rented premises upto 30/09/2026 on the
following conditions:-
(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the suit/rented
premises on or before 30/09/2026.
(ii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall regularly pay monthly
rent to the respondents/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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49173
4 SA-1011-2010
(iii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall not part with the rented
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 respondents/landlords shall be free to
execute the decree forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the
appellant/defendant/tenant does not vacate the rented premises on or
before 30/09/2026 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 30/09/2026.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is
hereby dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
