Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G.S.AHLUWALIA, J.
Anil Kumar Kushwah - Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Gupta - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 235 of 2010
Decided On : 13-01-2026
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 96 -- maintainability of appeal -- no decree passed against defendant but appeal filed by him -- right to file appeal is a statutory right, therefore, appeal has to be strictly in accordance with law -- S. 96 specifically provides that appeal will lie against decree -- decree and findings are two different aspects and cannot be equated with each other -- if defendant was aggrieved by findings recorded by trial Court then, in absence of decree against him, he had only two options -- either to file cross-objection under O. 44 R. 2, or to file civil revision if no appeal is filed by plaintiff -- appeal was filed by plaintiff, therefore, only option available with defendant was to prefer cross-objection -- appeal filed by defendant u/s. 96 against findings recorded by trial Court was not maintainable -- decree passed by first appellate Court set aside. [Paras 12 to 14]
(2) Advocate -- office of advocate situated in residential building -- cannot be said to be a commercial activity. 2025 (2) JLJ 410 relied on. [Para 16]
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(a) -- bona fide requirement for residential purpose -- trial Court came to conclusion that suit room was bona fidely required by plaintiff for his residential purpose, defendant committed default in payment of rent, and plaintiff has made out ground for eviction -- but refused to grant decree on ground that office of advocate is a commercial activity therefore suit for residential purpose is not maintainable -- held -- suit room is not situated in any commercial building but is situated in residential building -- office of advocate situated in residential building cannot be said to be a commercial activity -- trial Court committed material illegality by dismissing suit. 2025 (2) JLJ 410 relied on. [Paras 15 to 17]
(4) Rent -- condonation of delay in depositing rent as adjudicated by first appellate Court -- no reason assigned by defendant for not depositing rent for 25 months at rate of Rs. 125/- per month as adjudicated by first appellate Court -- submitted that there is bona fide mistake in remaining under impression that because of disconnection of electricity, rent would be Rs. 100/- per month, therefore he did not deposit rent -- held -- defendant is an advocate by profession, therefore, he cannot say that he had no legal knowledge -- if there was any factual confusion, he should have moved an application for clarification -- deciding not to deposit rent by taking a decision on his own cannot be said to be bona fide, specifically when defendant himself is an advocate -- no case made out for extension of time to deposit rent -- any default in deposit of rent during pendency of appeal cannot be condoned. (2003) 7 SCC 52 followed. [Paras 23, 25 & 28]
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12(1)(a), 12(1)(e), 13(1) and 13(2) -- appeal filed by defendant against judgment and decree passed by trial Court was not maintainable -- rent at rate adjudicated by first appellate Court was not deposited without any sufficient cause -- no application was filed for extension of time to deposit rent -- such belated application filed in second appeal, rejected -- plaintiff is entitled for decree u/s. 12(1)(a) -- trial Court committed material illegality in refusing decree on ground that office of advocate is a commercial activity and plaintiff had prayed for decree of eviction for residential purpose, in spite of the fact that plaintiff had proved that defendant is in arrears of rent and has not complied with provisions of S. 13(1) and 13(2), and suit room is required bona fide for residential purposes -- even if trial Court was under bona fide belief that suit for residential requirement is not maintainable if suit room is let out for non-residential purpose, it still should have awarded decree u/s. 12(1)(a) -- decree u/s. 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) passed against respondent/defendant. (2018) 12 SCC 533 and Civil Appeals No. 3640-3642 of 2025 decided on 6.3.2025 followed. [Paras 26, 27 & 32 to 34]
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 96 & vihy pyus ;ksX; gksuk çfroknh ds fo:) dksbZ fMØh ikfjr ugha ijarq mlds }kjk vihy dh xbZ & vihy djus dk vf/kdkj dkuwuh vf/kdkj gS] vr% vihy vfrfu;efu"Br% fof/k ds vuqlkj gksuk gksrh gS & /kkjk 96 esa fofufnZ"Vr% micaf/kr fd vihy fMØh ds fo:) gksxh fMØh vkSj fu"d"kZ nks fHkUu igyw gSa rFkk mudh ,d&nwljs ls lekurk ugha dh tk ldrh & ;fn çfroknh fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ ls O;fFkr Fkk rks] mlds fo:) fMØh ds vHkko esa] mlds ikl nks gh fodYi Fks & vk- 44 fu- 2 ds v/khu çR;k{ksi djuk vFkok oknh }kjk vihy ugha dh xbZ gks rks flfoy iqujh{k.k Qkby djuk & oknh }kjk vihy dh xbZ Fkh] vr% çfroknh dks dsoy çR;k{ksi djus dk fodYi miyC/k Fkk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ ds fo:) çfroknh }kjk /kkjk 96 ds v/khu dh xbZ vihy pyus ;ksX; ugha Fkh & çFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fMØh vikLrA ¼iSjk 12 ls 14½
¼2½ vf/koDrk & vkoklh; Hkou esa fLFkr vf/koäk dk dk;kZy; & okf.kfT;d xfrfof/k ugha dgk tk ldrkA 2025 ¼2½ ts,yts 410 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 16½
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ & vkoklh; ç;kstu ds fy, okLrfod vko';drk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pk fd oknh dks vius vkoklh; ç;kstu ds fy, oknxzLr d{k dh okLrfod vko';drk Fkh] çfroknh us HkkM+s ds lank; esa O;frØe fd;k] vkSj oknh us csn[kyh ds fy, vkèkkj fl) fd;k & ijarq bl vk/kkj ij fMØh çnku djus ls bUdkj dj fn;k fd vf/koäk dk dk;kZy; okf.kfT;d xfrfof/k gS blfy, vkoklh; ç;kstu ds fy, okn pyus ;ksX; ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & oknxzLr d{k fdlh okf.kfT;d Hkou esa fLFkr ugha] vfirq fLFkr vkoklh; Hkou esa fLFkr & vkoklh; Hkou esa fLFkr vfèkoäk ds dk;kZy; dks okf.kfT;d xfrfof/k ugha dgk tk ldrk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us okn [kkfjt dj rkfRod voS/krk dhA 2025 ¼2½ ts,yts 410 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 15 ls 17½
¼4½ HkkM+k & çFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ;Fkk U;k;fu.khZr HkkM+k fuf{kIr djus esa foyac dh ekQh & çFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ;Fkk U;k;fu.khZr :i;s 125@& çfrekl dh nj ls 25 ekl ds fy, HkkM+k fuf{kIr ugha djus ds fy, çfroknh us dksbZ dkj.k ugha fn;k & fuosnu fd;k fd bl /kkj.kk esa jgus ds dkj.k fd fo|qr vla;kstu ds dkj.k HkkM+k :i;s 100@& çfrekl gksxk] ln~Hkkfod Hkwy gqbZ vr% mlus HkkM+k fuf{kIr ugha fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & çfroknh dh o`fÙk vf/koäk dh gS] vr% og ;g ugha dg ldrk fd mls fof/k dk Kku ugha Fkk & ;fn dksbZ rF;kRed Hkze Fkk rks mls Li"Vhdj.k ds fy, vkosnu djuk pkfg, Fkk & Lo;a gh fofu'p; dj ds HkkM+k fuf{kIr ugha djus dk fu.kZ; ysuk ln~Hkkfod ugha dgk tk ldrk] fofufnZ"Vr% tc çfroknh Lo;a vf/koäk gS & HkkM+k fuf{kIr djus ds fy, le; &lhek cढ+k, tkus ds fy, ekeyk ugha curk & vihy ds yacu ds nkSjku HkkM+s ds fu{ksi esa fdlh Hkh O;frØe dks ekQ ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2003½ 7 ,llhlh 52 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 23] 25 ,oa 28½
¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½] 12¼1½¼³½] 13¼1½ rFkk 13¼2½ & çFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk U;k;fu.khZr nj ij HkkM+k fcuk fdlh i;kZIr dkj.k ds fuf{kIr ugha fd;k x;k & HkkM+k fuf{kIr djus ds fy, le; &lhek cढ+k, tkus gsrq dksbZ vkosnu ugha fd;k x;k & ;g foyafcr vkosnu f}rh; vihy esa fd;k x;k] ukeatwj fd;k x;k oknh /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu fMØh dk gdnkj gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us] bl rF; ds ckotwn fd oknh us lkfcr fd;k fd çfroknh ij HkkM+k cdk;k gS vkSj mlus /kkjk 13¼1½ ,oa 13¼2½ ds micaèkksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k rFkk oknxzLr d{k dh vkoklh; ç;kstu ds fy, okLrfod vko';drk gS] fMØh ls bl vk/kkj ij bUdkj dj rkfRod voS/krk dh fd vf/koäk dk dk;kZy; okf.kfT;d xfrfof/k gS vkSj oknh us vkoklh; ç;kstu ds fy, csn[kyh dh fMØh dh çkFkZuk dh Fkh & ;fn fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk ;g ln~Hkkfod fo'okl Fkk fd oknxzLr d{k xSj&vkoklh ç;kstu ds fy, fdjk, ij fn;k x;k gS blfy, vkoklh; vko';drk ds fy, okn pyus ;ksX; ugha] rc Hkh mls /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu rks fMØh çnku djuk pkfg, Fkh & çR;FkhZ@çfroknh ds fo:) /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ vkSj 12¼1½¼³½ ds v/khu fMØh ikfjrA ¼2018½ 12 ,llhlh 533 rFkk flfoy vihysa Øekad 3640&3642 lu~ 2025 fu.khZr fnukad 6-3-2025 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 26] 27 ,oa 32 ls 34½
JUDGMENT :
G.S.AHLUWALIA, J.
This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed th against the judgment and decree dated 30/03/2010 passed by 10 Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gwalior, in Civil Appeal Nos. 1-A/2010 and 2-A/2010 arising out of the judgment and decree th dated 31/07/2009 passed by 8 Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2009.
2. Appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that he is the owner of a house situated in front of office of INTAK, Tansen Road, Hajira, Gwalior, whose Municipal Corporation No. is 114 and is situated in Ward No. 15. Defendant/respondent was inducted as a tenant of one room situated in the said building on 17/10/2001 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- with additional charges of Rs. 125/- for electricity consumption, i.e., total amount of Rs. 625/- per month. Respondent/defendant is using the said room as his office. The tenancy is from 17th of every month till 16th of the succeeding month. Since plaintiff himself was in need of the suit premises, therefore, at the repeated verbal request by defendant, who was well known to him, gave the suit room for a period of six months and it was also assured by defendant that as soon as suitable accommodation is found by him, then he would vacate the suit room within a period of six months. Thereafter, defendant took a U-turn and every time refused to vacate the room on the ground that he could not find any suitable accommodation. In the month of November 2002, when the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit room, then he picked up quarrel and started abusing the plaintiff and pushed him out of the room. It was pleaded by plaintiff that plaintiff is in possession of one dining room and two other rooms in which he, his wife and three children are residing. The youngest son of plaintiff, namely Saujanya, is a student of engineering and since he has no separate room for himself, therefore, he is compelled to sit along with all his family members even for his study purposes, and therefore, it was pleaded that the room in question is bona fide required by the plaintiff for his youngest son. Defendant paid rent of Rs. 625/- per month till 16/11/2002 and stopped depositing the rent thereafter. Defendant had sent an amount of Rs. 500/- towards the rent of one month on 10/12/2002 which was returned back by the plaintiff on the ground that defendant has not paid electricity charges. Thereafter, again on 20/05/2003, defendant sent a money order of Rs. 500/- at the rate of monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. Since the amount was not in accordance with the settled rent, therefore, the same was returned back. When the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the entire outstanding settled rent, then he refused to do so. In April 2003, when the plaintiff went to defendant to ask him to vacate the suit room as well as to pay the outstanding amount, then defendant insisted that the plaintiff should alienate the room or should alienate the shop situated in the said building to defendant. When the plaintiff refused to do so, then defendant gave a threat that he is an advocate and the plaintiff will never be in a position to get the suit room vacated from him. Thereafter, defendant, with an intention to harass the plaintiff and his family members, lodged a false report on 07/05/2003 on the ground that plaintiff has tried to disconnect the electricity connection. When the police came to the suit room, then they found that the electricity connection was not disrupted, and accordingly, the police did not take any action. Thereafter, defendant filed a criminal complaint which was pending on the date of filing of the suit (however, it is fairly considered by counsel for parties that the complaint was partially dismissed and in appeal
A tenant's failure to communicate rent deposits and respond to rent demands constitutes default, justifying eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
Landlords must demonstrate bona fide requirements for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act; non-use of premises for six months provides grounds for eviction.
The burden of proof to establish subtenancy is on the landlord, and the court may affirm an eviction decree if the landlord successfully demonstrates the creation of subtenancy.
A tenant in default for over six months without disputing the rent is subject to eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
