High CourtsSingle Bench

Badri Prasad vs Ganesh Kumar

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 17 July 2014 · Citation: (2014) 07 MP CK 0311

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rohit Arya, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100 · Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 — Section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b), 12(1)(f)
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
S.A. No. 1431/2005
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 494 words

Rohit Arya, J.—This appeal by defendants/tenants u/s 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10/08/2005 passed in civil appeal No. 3A/2005 partly allowing the appeal, judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Shivpuri in civil suit No. 91-A/2004 is set aside to the extent of eviction of the appellants/tenants u/s 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

2.

This Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below meticulously appreciated material on record and have reached to a conclusion that appellants/defendants were in arrears of rent and without prior consent of plaintiff/respondent sub-let the suit premises. As such, Courts below have found that ground of eviction as provided under sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Act is made out. Findings of Courts below are based on pleadings and evidence on record by cogent evidence.

3.

Counsel for appellants after arguing for some time made a statement at Bar that the appellants may be permitted to continue in possession of the suit premises for a period of 02 years and prayer made by appellants'' counsel was not opposed by counsel for respondent/plaintiff in that behalf.

4.

Accordingly, with the consent of counsel for parties and having considered the fact that both the Courts below have ordered for ejectment on the grounds of 12(1)(a), arrears of rent and 12(1)(b) sub-letting suit premises without prior permission of the landlord/plaintiff and the fact that appellants are willing to vacate the suit premises within two years which was not opposed by counsel for the respondent, this appeal is disposed of with following directions:

(i) That, appellants/defendants/chants shall continue to occupy suit premises for a period of twenty four months from today,

(ii) That, the appellants/defendants shall vacate and handover the vacant suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent immediately after expiry of 24 months, i.e., on or before 16/07/2016;

(iii) That, the appellants/defendants shall continue to pay the rent regularly without default to the respondent/plaintiff or deposit in the Trial Court. In case, the appellants deposits the rent in the Trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff shall be free to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants. The arrears of rent shall be paid within four weeks from today;

(iv) That, the appellants shall not create any third party interest or induce any other tenant or deal with the suit premises in any manner whatsoever to the prejudice of respondent/plaintiff;

(v) That, if the appellants do not handover the vacant, peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff within the stipulated time, then the execution of the decree shall be done and if need be, by providing police force;

(vi) That, appellants shall furnish an undertaking with respect to aforesaid before trial Court within a period of four weeks from today.

(vii) Let a decree be drawn accordingly.

5.

With the aforesaid, substantial questions are answered in affirmative and appeal stands disposed of.

6.

Certified copy as per rules.