Bheru Singh vs Seemabai - 2025 Supreme(MP) 491

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
ALOK AWASTHI, J.
Bheru Singh – Appellant
Versus
Seemabai – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 620 of 2024
Decided On : 06-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sachin Subnis
For the Respondent: Jitendra Kumar Agral

Headnote:
(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 23J(iii) -- widow -- finding of landlady being a widow and death of her husband not challenged -- Sub-Divisional Authority has not committed any error of law in considering that she is entitled for eviction of suit property. [Para 11]
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 23A and 23J -- bona fide requirement -- husband of respondent landlady expired -- financial condition not well -- also having responsibility of children -- her requirement cannot be turned down -- pleading of bona fide need not controverted by petitioner -- impugned order does not warrant any interference regarding eviction of petitioner -- landlady is legally entitled to get possession back. (2002) 6 SCC 16 followed. [Paras 12, 18 & 22]
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 23A and 23J -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 58 -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 -- S. 53 -- question of ownership -- is required to be decided by leading evidence -- respondent produced sale deed of land in favour of her deceased husband -- not challenged by petitioner -- there is no need to prove facts which have already been admitted -- submission regarding ownership of petitioner has no force. [Paras 15 & 17]
(4) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 115 -- M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- S. 23E -- scope of power u/s. 23E -- power of revision conferred on High Court u/s. 23E is wider than S. 115 of CPC -- High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, has power to look into correctness of finding regarding bona fide need of landlord -- but, while examining correctness of findings, High Court could not act as Court of Appeal and reappreciate evidence to come to its own conclusion -- attempt should be made to keep as near as possible to limits of power of revision u/s. 115, exceeding the same only to extent necessary for preventing miscarriage of justice. 1994 JLJ 408 and AIR 1986 MP 72 relied on. [Para 19]
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 23¥¼3½ & fo/kok & edkuekyfdu fo/kok gksus vkSj mlds ifr dh e`R;q gksus dk fu"d"kZ vk{ksfir ugha & mi[kaM çkf/kdkjh us ;g ekudj fof/k dh dksbZ xyrh ugha dh fd og okn laifÙk ls csn[kyh dh gdnkj gSA ¼iSjk 11½
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 23d rFkk 23¥ & okLrfod vko';drk & çR;fFkZuh edkuekyfdu ds ifr dk nsgkolku gks x;k & foÙkh; n'kk Bhd ugha & larkuksa dk Hkh mÙkjnkf;Ro & mldh vko';drk udkjh ugha tk ldrh & okLrfod vko';drk ds vfHkopu dk ;kph }kjk çR;k[;ku ugha & ;kph dh csn[kyh ds laca/k esa vkf{kIr vkns'k esa gLr{ksi okafNr ugha & edkuekyfdu dCtk okil çkIr djus ds fy, fof/kr% gdnkj gSA ¼2002½ 6 ,llhlh 16 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12] 18 ,oa 22½
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 23d rFkk 23¥ & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 58 & Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e] 2023 & /kkjk 53 & LokfeRo dk Á'u & lk{; is'kdj ds lkfcr fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS & çR;fFkZuh us vius e`r ifr ds i{k esa Hkwfe dk foØ; foys[k is'k fd;k & ;kph }kjk vk{ksfir ugha & mu rF;ksa dks lkfcr djus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha tks igys gh Lohdkj fd, tk pqds gSa & ;kph ds LokfeRo ls lacaf/kr fuosnu esa dksbZ cy ughaA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 17½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 115 & eŒÁŒ LFkku fu;a=.k vfèkfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 23³ & /kkjk 23³ ds v/khu 'kfä dh O;kfIr mPp U;k;ky; dks /kkjk 23³ ds v/khu çnÙk iqujh{k.k dh 'kfä flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ls vf/kd foLr`r gS & mPp U;k;ky; dks viuh iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk ç;qä djrs le; edkuekfyd dh okLrfod vko';drk ls lacaf/kr fu"d"kZ dk vkSfpR; ij[kus dh 'kfä gS & ijarq fu"d"kZ dk vkSfpR; ij[krs le; mPp U;k;ky; vihy U;k;ky; dh Hkk¡fr dk;Z dj ds viuk Lo;a dk fu"d"kZ fudkyus ds fy, lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu ugha dj ldrk Fkk & U;k; dh gkfu jksdus ds fy, vko';d lhek rd gh mldk vfrya?ku djrs gq, & ;FkklaHko /kkjk 115 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k dh 'kfä dh lhekvksa ds Hkhrj jgus dh ps"Vk dh tkuk pkfg,A 1994 ts,yts 408 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1986 ,eih 72 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 19½

ORDER :

1. With the consent of parties, matter was heard finally.

2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) read with Section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1961") being aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in case No.0024/B 121/2024-25 whereby the application filed under Section 23(A) of the Act, 1961 for vacating the rented premises and recovery of arrears of rent, against the respondent, has been allowed.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent's house is situated at Krishnanagar Colony, Village Kamalya, Shujalpur, District Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh, Survey No. 175 area is 500 sq. ft. The respondent's husband acquired possession of the said house by purchasing it from the previous owner through a registered sale deed No. 623 dated 17.06.1997. The respondent's husband decided to shift to Shajapur in the year 2004 and the said house was rented for residential purposes at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month to the petitioner.

4. Further, on 14.10.2013, after the death of respondent's husband, due to her helpless situation of having minor children, the respondent requested the petitioner to vacate the said house, but the petitioner, with the malicious intention of taking advantage of the respondent's difficult circumstances and usurping the house, refused to let her stay and started showing people fraudulently prepared unregistered fake documents for selling the house. Consequently, respondent, through her lawyer, sent a notice to the petitioner tenant on 18.11.2013, requesting him to vacate the tenancy. The tenant sent a false reply to the said notice. After which, the respondent filed a suit against the respondent tenant for the house to be vacated. In which the tenant had stated in his counter-claim that he was the owner of the house. The respondent's civil suit was partially accepted vide judgment dated 16.03.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant filed an appeal in the first Appellate Court, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 21.03.2023. Thereafter, a Second Appeal No. 1216/2023 has also been filed by the petitioner, which is pending for consideration before this Court.

5. The learned authority, after taking the evidence available on record has allowed the application of the respondent and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of the vacant house in question to the petitioner within 15 days months. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Court below has failed to consider the factual aspects of the matter while passing the impugned order and not considered the fact that there is no relation between the petitioner and respondent as tenant and owner. The petitioner has not pay any amount to the respondent as rent, in spite of that, he purchased the suit house from the husband of respondent on 29.04.2004 in consideration of Rs.45,000/-. He has also contended that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the other party. A Second Appeal No. 1216/2023 with regard to the same suit, is also pending before this Court and having knowledge of the same, impugned order has been passed. The respondent has not filed any document on record to establish the ownership and even not stepped into the witness box to prove his case. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order and present petition be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal of the petition.

8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Before dwelling upon the issue involved in this revision petition, it is poignant to narrate here that a civil suit No. 125A/2017 for specific performance of agreement was file