Madhya Pradesh High Court
Girija Shankar (Died) Through ... vs Vishnu Kishor Jaiswal (Died) Through ... on 12 May, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 12 th OF MAY, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 1763 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. GIRIJA SHANKAR (DIED) THROUGH L.RS.
SMT. USHA W/O DAYARAM VERMA, AGED ABOUT
1A. 39 YEARS, TALAB MOHALLA, ITARSI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2A. RAJESH S/O LATE KANCHEDI LAL RAIKWKAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALAB MOHALLA ITARSI
TEHSIL ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3A. JAGDISH S/O LATE KANCHEDI LAL RAIKWKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, TALAB MOHALLA ITARSI
TEHSIL ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4A. ANJANA D/O LATE KANCHEDI LAL RAIKWKAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALAB MOHALLA ITARSI
TEHSIL ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5A. AARTI D/O LATE KANCHEDI LAL RAIKWKAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, TALAB MOHALLA ITARSI
TEHSIL ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6A. RAJU S/O LATE KANCHEDI LAL RAIKWKAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALAB MOHALLA ITARSI
TEHSIL ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH GULATEE-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL (DIED) THROUGH L.RS.
SMT. UMA W/O LATE VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL,
A. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OLD ITARSI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
B. GUDDU S/O LATE VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OLD ITARSI
2
DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
C. SACHIN S/O LATE VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OLD ITARSI
DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
D. SHRIDDHA S/O LATE VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OLD ITARSI
DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
E. DIVYA S/O LATE VISHNU KISHOR JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OLD ITARSI
DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
T his second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2021 passed by 1st District Judge, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad in Civil Appeal No.06/2015 confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2015 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No.31-A/2011, whereby learned Courts below have decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs/landlord on the ground under Section 12(1) (a), (e), (h) & (o) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of bonafide requirement of respondents whereas there were only 2-3 defaults in depositing the rent during trial and the plaintiffs/respondents are not in need of the suit accommodation and there is other alternative accommodation available with the respondents/plaintiffs/landlord. He submits 3 that the defendants have also not made any encroachment. Accordingly, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Learned both the Courts below on the basis of entire material available on record have found that the appellants/defendants are in arrears of rent and they have not complied the provisions contained in Section 13(1) of the Act and the plaintiffs/respondents are in need of the suit accommodation for residential purpose after making addition alteration in the existing building and the defendants have made encroachment on the property which is not a part of tenancy.
4. In the case of Kishore Singh Vs. Satish Kumar Singhvi 2017(3) JLJ 375 coordinate bench of this Court has relied upon the decision of 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 bona fide requirement do not give rise to any substantial question of law. As such, there does not appear any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays that the appellants may be granted one year time to vacate the tenanted premises.
6. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the appellants for granting time to vacate the tenanted premises, in the interest of justice and looking to the period and nature of tenancy, about one year time for vacating the tenanted premises is granted on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellants/defendants shall vacate the tenanted premises on or before 30.04.2024.
(ii) The appellants/defendants shall regularly pay rent to the respondents/landlord and shall also clear all the dues, if any, including the 4 costs of the litigation, if any, imposed by the learned Courts below.
(iii) The appellants/defendants shall not part with the tenanted premises to anybody and shall not change nature of the same.
(iv) The appellants/defendants 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 fail to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondents/plaintiffs shall be free to execute the decree forthwith.
(vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellants/defendants do not vacate the tenanted premises on or before 30.04.2024 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.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this second appeal is hereby dismissed and disposed off. No order as to costs.
8. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Pallavi Digitally signed by KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2023.05.12 18:53:40 +05'30'