Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 410 (MP)

Babulal Milapchand Jain v. Arvind

2012-04-16

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This Second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant (tenant) challenging the judgment dated 23.11.2011 by which the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court by the judgment dated 24.1.2011 had decreed the suit for eviction filed by the respondent. 3. The respondent/landlord had filed the suit for eviction on the ground that he is in bona fide need of the suit-premises for starting his cloth business. 4. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, had found the need of the respondent/landlord for the aforesaid purpose to be bona fide. The Trial Court had also found that the respondent had no other alternative suitable accommodation in the town concerned for starting the cloth business. The trial Court had accordingly decreed the suit under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The Trial Court had also examined the ground of non-payment of rent and had recorded a finding in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. 5. The learned First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence available on record, has affirmed the decree of eviction on both the grounds i.e. under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(a) of the Act and has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. 6. The two Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have concurrently found that the grounds of eviction under section 12(1) and 12(1)(f) of the Act have been proved. The findings which have been recorded by the two Courts below are essentially the findings of fact which are duly supported by the evidence on record. The findings are neither erroneous nor perverse. The issue which the appellants are raising in this appeal is concluded by the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants at this stage has made a prayer for grant of time for vacating the suit premises. 8. The findings are neither erroneous nor perverse. The issue which the appellants are raising in this appeal is concluded by the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants at this stage has made a prayer for grant of time for vacating the suit premises. 8. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, the appellant is granted time to vacate the suit-premises upto 30th April, 2013 upon his furnishing an undertaking within eight weeks from today before the trial Court to the following effect :- (1) That the appellant will hand-over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit-premises to the respondent on or before 30th April, 2013. (2) That the appellant will clear all the arrears of rent, if any, pending within a period of six weeks from today. (3) That the appellant will continue to pay the rent of the premises by 7th of each month. (4) The appellant will not create any third party right on the suit premises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.