Iqbal Singh vs Dr Tarun Dua on 10 March, 2026

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18773

1 SA-289-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2026
SECOND APPEAL No. 274 of 2026
SHRIRAM KHATRI
Versus
DR. TARUN DUA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divesh Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
WITH
SECOND APPEAL No. 278 of 2026
SMT. SWEETA KHARBANDA
Versus
DR. TARUN DUA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divesh Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

SECOND APPEAL No. 289 of 2026
IQBAL SINGH
Versus
DR TARUN DUA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divesh Jain - Advocate for the appellant.

ORDER

Since all the three second appeals have arisen out of common judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, therefore, are being decided by this common order.

2. Fact remains that three civil suits were filed by the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18773

2 SA-289-2026 respondents/plaintiffs for eviction of three Shops Nos.1, 3 & 4, which were consolidated by the Trial Court vide order dated 21.07.2022 and evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded in Civil Suit No.3-A/2015 (Tarun Dua and another vs. Shree Ram Khatri).

3. Facts in short are that the civil suits were filed for eviction of the Shops Nos.1, 3 & 4 on the grounds provided under Section 12(1)(a)&(k) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') but thereafter the suits were amended proposing the need of plaintiff 1- Dr. Tarun Dua and his son Tanmay Dua as well as for parking space. It is alleged in the plaint that the son of plaintiff 1- Dr. Tarun Dua, being a Doctor, is in need of the shops for starting his clinic as well as for parking and there is no other

alternative suitable vacant accommodation with the plaintiffs, in the township of Damoh.

4. It is not in dispute that the rented shops were given on rent by plaintiff 1- Dr. Tarun Dua and his brother late Jairaj Dua, the father of plaintiff- 2 Shivansh Dua.

5. Upon service of summons, the defendant(s) appeared and filed their written statement(s) denying the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff 1 or his son is not in need of the suit shops for starting the clinic or for parking space, because the plaintiffs are not owner of the rented shops and the plaintiffs are having sufficient alternative accommodation for their alleged need. It is also contended that the suit shops belong to Municipal Corporation, Damoh, therefore, the alleged need being not genuine, the suit(s) deserve to be dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18773

3 SA-289-2026

6. After recording evidence of the parties, both the Courts below although dismissed the suit(s) on the grounds under Sections 12(1)(a)(h)&(k) of the Act, but found that the son of plaintiff 1 is in need of the rented shops for starting his clinic and decreed the suit.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) taking this Court to paragraphs 18, 19, 40, 43, 50, 54, 55, 58 & 59 of the statement of plaintiff 1- Dr. Tarun Dua submits that there are several alternative vacant accommodations available with the plaintiffs in the township of Damoh and the plaintiff 1 or his son is not in need of the rented shops for starting the clinic and from the oral testimony of the plaintiff 1, it is clear that in fact he is not in need of the shops for staring clinic by his son, and the rented shops are required for parking space and both the Courts below have without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, committed an illegality in decreeing the suits even without recording any finding in respect of the alleged need for parking space. He submits that since the land of the shops belongs to the Municipal Corporation, Damoh, therefore, in absence of proof of ownership the plaintiffs cannot seek eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, and the suit could not have been decreed. He also submits that under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, the suit for the need of parking space cannot be decreed and the decree is contrary to Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of Hasmat Rai & Anr. vs Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 . With these submissions he prays for admission of the second appeal(s).

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant(s) and perused the record.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18773

4 SA-289-2026

9. In the present case, both the Courts below have upon due consideration of oral and documentary evidence found that the son of plaintiff 1, namely Tanmay Dua being Doctor, is in need of the shops for staring his clinic and there is no other alternative accommodation available with the plaintiffs in the township of Damoh for staring the clinic. Although, in the oral testimony of the plaintiff 1- Dr. Tarun Dua, it has come on record that there are three rooms available on first floor of a building and as per submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, in Damoh City, there is a three storied Hospital, constructed by the plaintiffs themselves, but in the light of statement given by the plaintiffs in paragraphs 54 & 55 to the effect that Damoh Hospital does not belong exclusively to the plaintiffs, but it is a firm property of 5-10 persons/Doctors, the same cannot be said to be alternative accommodations for starting clinic by plaintiff 1's son - Tanmay Dua.

10. 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.

11. So far as the question of proof of ownership of the plaintiffs over the rented shops, is concerned, in the present case there is no dispute that the defendant(s) were inducted directly by the plaintiff 1 and his brother late Jairam Dua, so in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18773

5 SA-289-2026 of Dadan Bai vs. Arjundas, (1995) 3 SCC 412 as well as in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anar Devi vs. Nathu Ram, (1994) 4 SCC 250 & Sheela & Ors vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash (2002) 3 SCC 375, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are required to prove their ownership over the suit shops and in fact the defendant(s) cannot challenge the ownership of the plaintiffs since they are estopped as per Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon due consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the parties, including oral testimony of the plaintiff 1- Dr. Tarun Dua, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

1 3 . At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant(s) prays for granting reasonable time to vacate the suit shop(s) by the tenants.

14. In view of the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant(s), however by declining interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below, this Court deems fit to grant time for vacating the rented shop upto 30/06/2026 on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant(s)/defendant(s)/tenant(s) shall vacate the rented shops on or before 30/06/2026.

(ii) The appellant(s)/defendant(s)/tenant(s) 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.

(iii) The appellant(s)/defendant(s)/tenant(s) shall not part with the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18773

6 SA-289-2026 rented shops to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.

(iv) The appellant(s)/defendant(s)/tenant(s) 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(s)/defendant(s)/tenant(s) fail 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(s)/defendant(s)/tenant(s) do not vacate the rented shops on or before 30/06/2026 and create any obstruction, they 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(s)/defendant(s)/tenant(s) shall not be entitled for further extension of time after 30/06/2026.

15. Resultantly, these second appeal(s) fail and are hereby dismissed.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE