Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 204 (MP)

Hirdesh Dwivedi v. Ramu @ Gaurav Bhavsar

2025-03-20

DWARKADHISH BANSAL

body2025
JUDGMENT 1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant/tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.11.2010 passed by First Additional District Judge, Raisen in civil suit No.10-A/2006 whereby trial Court has decreed respondent/plaintiff/landlord’s civil suit for eviction on the grounds under section 12(1)(f),(g)&(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit with the allegations that plaintiff is owner of the shop in question admeasuring 10X20 sq.ft., which was let out on rent by previous owner and landlord Mahendra Singh to the defendant. It is alleged that father of the plaintiff namely Omprakash Bhavsar purchased the building of the shop (total area 10X84 = 840 sq.ft.) vide registered sale deed dated 5.12.1994 from its owner and got raised construction after due permission of the competent authority. After purchase of the shop, the defendant started making payment of rent to the plaintiff and paid monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff upto 31.12.1995 and stopped paying rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996, hence a notice demanding arrears of rent was issued to the defendant. It is alleged that the defendant has denied title of the plaintiff and the suit shop has become unsafe for human habitation. It is also alleged that the plaintiff is in need of the shop for starting lodge therein after rebuilding which is not possible without its vacation by the defendant, which shall be started jointly by the plaintiff, Omprakash Bhavsar and Shyamu Bhavsar. On inter alia allegations the suit was filed. 3. Upon service of summons, the defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that monthly rate of rent is Rs.300/- per month and the defendant has never denied title of the plaintiff. It is also contended that the plaintiff is not in need of the accommodation for starting lodge and the shop is in good condition. It is also contended that the plaintiff has excessively valued the suit and upon making proper valuation of the suit, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. On inter alia contentions prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties trial Court framed as many as 11 issues and recorded evidence of the parties. On inter alia contentions prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties trial Court framed as many as 11 issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The plaintiff examined himself-Ramu @ Gaurav (PW-1), Harishankar Gadhwal (PW-2) and Omprakash Bhavsar (PW-3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/6). Similarly, the defendant examined himself-Hridesh Dwivedi (DW-1) and Rajendra Tiwari (DW-2) and produced documentary evidence (Ex. D-1 to D-5(c). 5. After hearing the parties, Trial court upon due consideration of the material available on record, decreed the suit for eviction on the grounds under section 12(1)(f),(g)&(h) of the Act, however, refused to pass decree on the ground under section 12(1)(a)&(c) of the Act and at the same time held the rate of rent to be Rs.300/- per month in place of Rs.1,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that although there is no dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties, but the case of the plaintiff is that his father purchased building of the suit shop from previous owner and landlord Mahendra Singh, as such the plaintiff has no locus to file the suit for his need of starting lodge. He further submits that without there being any sale deed on record, trial court has committed illegality in presuming the plaintiff to be owner of the rented shop and in decreeing the suit. He also submits that trial court without taking into consideration the statement of plaintiff to the effect that he will think over starting of business after completion of master degree, has decreed the suit illegally. He submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, impugned judgment and decree of eviction passed by trial court is not sustainable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment and decree of eviction passed by trial court with the further submissions that the appellant/defendant has not deposited rent for last one year and the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for decree of mesne profits @ Rs.1,000/- per month. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Following points for determination of this Court, are arising in the present appeal:- (i) Whether in absence of sale deed, trial Court has committed illegality in decreeing the suit for eviction ? 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Following points for determination of this Court, are arising in the present appeal:- (i) Whether in absence of sale deed, trial Court has committed illegality in decreeing the suit for eviction ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, trial Court has committed illegality in passing decree of eviction ? 10. In the present case the plaintiff has come with the case that he is owner and landlord of the defendant, who is tenant in the shop on rent of Rs.1,000/- per month, which after holding trial has been found to be Rs.300/- per month by trial court, regarding which no cross-objection has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 11. Although copy of sale deed has not been placed on record, but in the present case the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in his oral testimony, has clearly stated that he is owner of the shop in question but no effective crossexamination has been done in respect of ownership of the plaintiff over the rented shop. Further, in paragraph 2 of chief-examination, the defendant himself has stated that predecessor-in-title/landlord of the shop namely Mahendra Singh told him that he has sold house to joint family of Roop Narayan Bhavsar, who has got executed sale deed in favour of his grandson and admittedly, the plaintiff is grandson of Roop Narayan Bhavsar. 12. Taking into consideration oral testimony of the parties, trial court in paragraph 19 of impugned judgment, has observed that in the present case there is no dispute about ownership and landlordship of the plaintiff. As such in my considered opinion merely because of the fact that the plaintiff has not produced sale deed on record, it cannot be said that plaintiff has no locus to file the suit for eviction against the defendant, who is admittedly tenant in suit shop, inducted by predecessor-in-title namely Mahendra Singh. 13. In so far as the question of bonafide requirement of the plaintiff to start lodge, is concerned, trial court while deciding issue No. 3, 4, 7 & 11, has discussed oral evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses as well as of the defendant and come to conclusion that the plaintiff is in need of the shop for starting lodge, which is also in dilapidated condition. It is also held that the plaintiff is also in need of the shop for reconstruction and the same cannot be undertaken without getting vacated the shop from the defendant. At the same time trial court in paragraph 52 of the impugned judgment, has also found that there is no alternative accommodation with the plaintiff. 14. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record especially in presence of the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff and defendant, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment and decree of eviction passed by trial Court. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant prays for six months time to vacate the suit shop, which has not been opposed by counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 16. In view of above time upto 31.08.2025 is granted to the appellant for vacating the suit premises on the following conditions: (i) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall vacate the tenanted/suit premises on or before 31.08.2025. (ii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall regularly pay rent to the respondent/landlord and shall also clear all the dues, if any, including the costs of the litigation, if any, imposed by Court below, within a period of 30 days. (iii) The appellant/defendant/tenant shall not part with the suit premises to anybody and shall not change nature of the same. (iv) The appellant/defendant/tenant 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/defendant/tenant fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent/plaintiff shall be free to execute the decree forthwith. (vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the appellant/defendant/ tenant does not vacate the suit premises on or before 31.8.2025 and creates any obstruction, he shall be liable to pay mesne profits of Rs.500/- per day, so also contempt of judgment/order of this Court. (vii) It is made clear that the appellant/defendant/tenant shall not be entitled for further extension of time after 31.8.2025. 17. With the aforesaid observations, this first appeal is hereby dismissed/disposed off. 18. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed. 19. However, no order as to costs.