IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 16^th OF JULY, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No.1843 of 2007 SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN AND ANOTHER Versus SMT. KRISHNA DEVI (DEAD) THR.LRS RAM JHUDELE AND ANOTHER ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Appearance:

Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

Shri N.K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent 1(a).

None for the respondent 1(b) though served.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

JUDGMENT This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 03.09.2007 passed by District Judge, Katni in Civil Appeal No.18A/2006 affirming the judgment and decree dtd.13.02.2006 passed by 2^nd Civil Judge Class-II, Katni in Civil Suit No.103A/2004 whereby Courts below have concurrently dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for eviction filed on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a), (b) & (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) in respect of the rented suit shop.

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiffs had instituted a suit for eviction of the suit shop admeasuring about 8.5’x30’ with the allegations that the plaintiffs are owners and landlords of the shop and originally their mother Puttibai inducted the defendant as tenant on rent of Rs.600/- per month and at present the rate of rent is Rs.700/- per month. It is alleged that the defendant has not paid rent w.e.f. 01.09.2003 in spite of service of demand notice. It is also alleged that the defendant took the shop for her business, but she without taking prior permission of the plaintiff, sublet it to Ram Jhudele and at present he is doing business in the shop. It is also alleged that shop is needed for business of the plaintiff 2-Anurag Jain, who wants to do kirana business in the shop and as he is already doing the same business with plaintiff 1-Santosh Kumar in rented shop, therefore, is having experience. Except the suit shop there is no other alternative accommodation available with the plaintiffs in the township of Katni. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed for eviction.

3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement and in paragraph 1 & 2 of written statement, specifically admitted that the plaintiffs are owners of the shop and she is their tenant on rent of Rs.700/- per month. It is contended that the defendant is not in arrears of rent and has also not sublet to anybody because she herself is doing business in the shop. It is also contended that the plaintiffs are already doing business in another shop available with them and with a view to get vacated the shop, the suit has been instituted, which is also not suitable for the plaintiffs’ kirana business. In paragraph 10 of the written statement, it is contended that there are four shops in the building of the suit shop, out of them in one shop the plaintiff is carrying out his business and one shop is lying vacant. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The plaintiffs in support of their case examined Anurag Kumar (PW/1), Surendra Kumar Jain (PW/2), Dilip Soni (PW/3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/7). In rebuttal the defendant also examined her son-Ramchandra Jhudele (DW/1), Nirmal Kumar Tamrakar (DW/2), Pradeep Kumar Jain (DW/3)

and produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/3).

5. After hearing the parties, trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit on all the three grounds vide judgment and decree dtd. 13.02.2006. Upon filing civil appeal, first appellate Court has also affirmed the judgment and decree of trial Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dtd. 03.09.2007 and at the same time dismissed the plaintiffs’ application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

6. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by Courts below, instant second appeal was preferred by the