JUDGMENT :

Jai Kumar Pillai, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22/07/2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Shajapur, District-Shajapur in Civil Appeal No.2- A/2010 filed by legal representatives No.1 and 2 of sole respondent/plaintiff/landlord whereby the judgment and decree dated 24/12/2009 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Shajapur, District-Shajapur in Civil Suit No.89-A/2009 was set-aside.

Factual Matrix of the Case :-

2. Before adverting into the merits of the case, it would be apposite to state here first that earlier on 08/10/2012 this Court admitted the appeal for final hearing on the following substantial question of law :-

“Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in passing a decree for eviction under Section 12 (1) (d) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in the facts and circumstances of the case ?”

3. Thereafter, application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking the additional documents on record was filed by the appellant/defendant and on 14/02/2019 parties appeared and argued the matter finally before this Court and vide judgment dated 05/03/2019 this Court has observed, as follows:-

“In view of the above discussion and since the documents filed by the appellant along with the application are required to be proved, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court as well as by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, both are set- aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication.”

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05/03/2019, the legal representatives No.1 and 2 of sole respondent/plaintiff/landlord preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No.5449 – 5450/2021 and vide order dated 13/10/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted the leave and held as under:-

“In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the judgment dated 05/03/2019 of the High Court, dismiss the application filed by the respondent for additional documents and direct that on the basis of the material already on record, a view should be taken by the High Court within the jurisdiction of a second appeal and see if the order of the First Appellate Court is required to be interfered with.

The second appeal being of vintage 2011, we are sure that High Court would bestow its early consideration in the matter.”

5. Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 13/10/2023, the present appeal has been restored on 08/02/2024 to its original number and the same was listed before this Court 06/08/2025, thereafter this Court finally heard the appeal on 16/09/2025.

Facts of case, in short are as under :-

6. It is the case of plaintiff/respondent/landlord (now dead) that she filed a suit against the defendant/appellant/tenant seeking eviction, recovery of rent etc. with respect to suit shop situated at Nai Sadak,  Jawahar Marg, Shajapur. It is contended that initially the defendant was running a Cycle Shop in the suit premises, thereafter after filing of the suit i.e. on 19/12/2007, the defendant started new business of Mawa (a diary product) in the suit premises. Since last one and a half years, the said alleged sale of diary product had stopped and the suit premises is lying vacant and closed/locked, therefore, the plaintiff prayed for eviction of suit premises on the ground that the defendant is not using the same, by passing decree of eviction under Section 12 (1) (d) of the M.P. Accommodation Act, 1961 (for brevity “Act, 1961”).

7. The plaintiff initially filed an application under Section 23-A of the Act, 1961 before the Rent Controlling Authority for eviction on the ground of bonafide need for her son Manoj but after some time, the same was withdrawn, thereafter she filed the Civil Suit.

8. Upon receiving the notice, the defendant filed written statement contending that the suit premises is neither vacant nor closed and he is continuing with the same bu