The court upheld eviction due to non-payment of rent and denial of landlord's title under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL th ON THE 20 OF AUGUST, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 1457 of 2009 RAM DULARE AND OTHERS Versus THE NIMAD INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PVT.LTD.

Appearance:

Shri T.S. Ruprah - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri U.S. Tiwari - Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

ORDER This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2009 passed by 3rd Addl. District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in civil appeal no.5A/2009 affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001 passed by III Civil Judge Class-I, Khandwa in civil suit no.29A/2001, whereby Courts below have decreed the respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction on the grounds available under Section 12(1)(a) &(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 , (hereinafter in short 'the Act'), along with arrears of rent, if any.

2. Against the judgment and decree passed by Courts below, instant second appeal was preferred which was admitted for final hearing on

13.01.2016 on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the appellants had deposited the rent by moving an application before the Rent Controlling Authority and also when there is continuous litigation with regard to the title of the suit accommodation, the denial of the title of the respondent over the suit premises amounts Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT to disclaimer of the title and entailing a decree for eviction of the suit premises under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act ?

2. Whether in view of the findings on the substantial question of law and the fact that the rent of the suit premises was being deposited by the appellant before the Rent controlling Authority and thereafter continuously being deposited in the trial Court in advance for payment to the real landlord. The findings of the learned courts below that the appellants are liable to be evicted under Section 12(1)(a) is perverse and thus not sustainable under the law ?"

3. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the suit premises was given on rent by father of Director of plaintiff-Corporation namely, Gangadharji Bagdi and the defendants are residing in the premises as tenants, which is also clear from paragraphs 2 and 4 of the written statement, however, in the written statement, they have denied title of the plaintiff by saying that the suit premises belongs to Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and in view of the fact that the defendant did not pay the monthly rent in accordance with Section 13(1) of the Act, both the Courts have decreed the suit on both the grounds under Sections 12(1)(a) & (c) of the Act.

4. After arguing at length and in view of the admissions made in the written statement, learned Senior counsel for the appellants/defendants has not been able to point out any illegality in the judgment and decree of eviction passed by Courts below and prays for withdrawal of this second appeal upon granting one year time to vacate the suit premises.

5. Upon due consideration and in view of the aforesaid factual scenario and there being no opposition to the prayer made on behalf of the appellants, however, by declining interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below, this Court deems fit to grant time for Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT vacating the suit premises upto 15.08.2026 on the following conditions:- (i) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall vacate the suit premises on or before 15.08.2026.

(ii) The appellants/defendants/tenants shall regularly pay monthly rent