[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Gargav vs Smt Radha on 17 March, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22210
1 SA-1259-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
SECOND APPEAL No. 1259 of 2017
SUNIL GARGAV AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT RADHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Arjariya - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Mohd. Ali - Senior Advocate with Shri Ahmad Shahid Hussain - Advocate for
the respondents.
ORDER
This second appeal has already been admitted for final hearing on
24/11/2017 and is listed today for consideration of IA No.14156/2017.
2. This second appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/defendants/tenants challenging the judgment and decree dated
28/8/2017 passed by First Additional District Judge, Harda in RCA
No.4A/2016 affirming the judgment and decree dated 5/2/2016 passed by
Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-II, Harda in
Civil Suit No.5A/2015, whereby both the Courts below have concurrently
decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for eviction on the grounds available
under Section 12(1)(a) and (o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act,
1961 (in short "the Act").
3. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on 24/11/2017 on the
following substantial questions of law:-
"(1) Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in law
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22210
2 SA-1259-2017
while dismissing the appeal on the ground that the rent
amount has not been deposited within time though the
same has been deposited in light of the order passed in
Writ Petition No.6989/2016 ?
(2) Whether the Courts below have erred in decreeing
the suit filed by the respondents under Section 12(1)(a)
of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act,
1961 without framing any issues regarding the rate of
rent when appellants/defendants have specifically
denied the rate of rent in the written statement ?"
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is a decree of
eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(o) of the Act also, but the second
appeal was admitted only on the substantial questions of law, covered by the
ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act and since both the parties have
settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and the appellants are willing
to vacate the rented residential accommodation and the respondents have also
consented to grant time upto 31/3/2027 for vacation of the rented
accommodation, therefore, the appellants may be granted time upto
31/3/2027 to vacate the rented accommodation.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to
the aforesaid proposition made by learned counsel for the appellants.
6. Upon due consideration and there being no opposition to the prayer
made on behalf of the appellants, however, by declining interference in the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, this Court deems
fit to grant time for vacating the rented premises upto 31/3/2027 on the
following conditions:-
(i) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall vacate the rented premises
on or before 31/3/2027.
(ii) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall regularly pay monthly rent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22210
3 SA-1259-2017
to the respondents/plaintiffs/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 appellants/defendants/tenants shall not part with the rented
premises to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.
(iv) The appellants/defendants/tenants 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 appellants/defendants/tenants fail to comply with any of the
aforesaid conditions, the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords shall be free to
execute the decree forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellants/defendants/tenants
do not vacate the rented premises on or before 31/3/2027 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 appellants/defendants/tenants shall not be
entitled for further extension of time after 31/3/2027.
7. In view of the aforesaid, interference in the impugned judgment and
decree is declined and this second appeal is disposed of in above terms .
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
