Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 132 (MP)

Mohammad Jamil v. Mansur Ali

2016-02-17

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This second appeal under section 100 of CPC is at the instance of defendant/tenant challenging the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below. trial Court by judgment dated 17.5.2013 had decreed the suit for eviction being Civil Suit No.39-A/2009 and the first appellate Court by dismissing the Civil Appeal No.23-A/2013 by judgment dated 13.1.2014 has affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 3. The respondent/landlord had filed suit for eviction pleading that appellant is the tenant in the suit premises and that respondent is the trained electrician having license to do electric motor binding, repairing, electric fitting and contract work and was earlier doing business in rented shop at 216 near Khajur Wali Masjid Ujjain but on the death of its owner the LRs have got the premises vacated in 2008 and the respondent had taken another shop from Balibai for 11 months. The said period has expired and Balibai has also died and her LRs are asking the appellant to vacate the premises. Hence the suit premises was required for bona fide need of his business. The arrears of rent from 1.6.2009 were also claimed. 4. The suit was opposed by appellant by denying the bona fide need and also raising the plea that respondent has alternative suitable accommodation. 5. Both the Courts below have concurrently held in favour of the respondent/landlord. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the rent receipt Ex.P-3 is forged document and has wrongly been relied upon by the Courts below and that two shops belonging to appellant were given on rent to Chetana Tailoring and Saluja Oil which indicates that respondent has no bona fide need and on earlier occasion while remanding the matter back to the trial Court by order dated 31.8.2012 the respondent’s crossobjection for grant of decree under section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was rejected. Hence the trial Court could not have granted the decree on that ground. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant and on perusal of the record it is noticed that both the Courts below have elaborately examined the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The Courts below have found that respondent is doing business in the shop taken on rent from Balibai. In this regard the rent receipts. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant and on perusal of the record it is noticed that both the Courts below have elaborately examined the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The Courts below have found that respondent is doing business in the shop taken on rent from Balibai. In this regard the rent receipts. Exs.P-3 to P-8 as also the electricity connection bill Exs.P-9 to P-15 and the statement of PW4 Jagdish, grand-son of Balibai, have duly been considered. The Courts below have also found that the rent receipts Exs.P-3 to P-8 are not the forged documents. The bona fide need of respondent for the suit premises has duly been established. It has also been found that other shops were let-out to Chetana Tailoring and Saluja Oil prior to 2008, whereas the need for respondent had arisen in the year 2008 when he was required to vacate the earlier rented premises and take on rent the shop of Balibai for 11 months. Each of the alternative accommodation which was alleged to have been available with the respondent has duly been examined and it has been found that no suitable alternative accommodation is available in the town concern to satisfy the need of respondent. 8. The findings which are recorded by the two Courts below are pure findings of fact. 9. So far as the judgment in the earlier round dated 31.8.2012 passed by Additional District Judge is concerned, the cross-objection of respondent was rejected as time barred and it was also found that the ground under section 12(1)(f) of Act was not properly examined. Hence the matter was remitted back to the trial Court. Therefore on remand the trial Court has not committed any error in deciding the issue of bona fide need and granting decree on that ground. 10. The findings which are recorded by the two Courts below are pure findings of fact duly supported by evidence on record. Hence the issue which the appellant is raising is concluded by the findings of fact and appeal does not involve any substantial question of law which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant has prayed for time to vacate the suit premises. 12. Hence the issue which the appellant is raising is concluded by the findings of fact and appeal does not involve any substantial question of law which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant has prayed for time to vacate the suit premises. 12. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, the appellant is granted time upto 31st January 2017, to vacate the suit premises on the following conditions : (1) The appellant will furnish an undertaking before the trial Court within 4 weeks from today stating that he will handover the peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents on or before 31.1.2017. (2) The appellant will comply with the money part of the decree within 6 weeks from today. (3) The appellant will continue to deposit the rent of the suit premises on or before 15th of each month. (4) The appellant will not create any third party right on the suit premises in the meanwhile. R. K. Samdani for appellant; S.K. Sharma for respondent.