The court upheld the eviction decree under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, affirming that sub-tenancy without landlord consent leads to dismissal of defenses based on rent payments.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 24^th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 84 of 2012 VIRENDRA KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS'

Versus ARVIND CHATURVEDI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Sanjana Sahni - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri J.L. Soni - Advocate for the LRs of respondent 1.

J U D G M E N T This second appeal has been preferred by the original appellant/defendant-2 Virendra Kumar (dead) through LRs, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 passed by 1^st Addl. District Judge, Hoshangabad in civil appeal no.64-A/2009 reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 passed by 2^nd Civil Judge Class-II, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad in civil suit no.3A/2009, whereby Trial Court dismissed the original respondents/plaintiffs’ suit for eviction of rented shop ad-measuring 171 sq.ft., filed on the grounds of defaults in making payment of monthly rent and sub-letting, available under Section 12(1)(a) & (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and in civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs, First Appellate Court decreed the suit for eviction on both the grounds available under Section 12(a) & (b) of the Act.

2. In short, the facts are that the original plaintiffs-Arvind Chaturvedi and Satyendra Prasann Singh Yadav, instituted the suit with the allegations that the plaintiffs are office bearers of Gandhi Sabha Bhawan Private Trust Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT and are authorized to file the suit. It is alleged that originally the defendant 1- Pradeep Kumar was inducted as a tenant in the suit shop no.10 on rent of Rs.230/- per month, who in spite of service of demand notice dated 10.01.2007, has not paid rent for the period from December, 2004 to December, 2006. It is also alleged that without prior permission of the plaintiffs/landlord, the defendant no.1 has sublet the rented shop to the defendant 2 and at present, the defendant 2 alone is running his business in the suit shop. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of eviction on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a) & (b) of the Act. On inter alia allegations the suit was filed.

3. Despite service of summons of the plaint, the defendant 1-Pradeep Kumar did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte.

4. The defendant 2-Virendra Kumar appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that he has never committed any default in making payment of rent and when he refused to enhance the monthly rent, then the plaintiffs stopped receiving the rent and the defendant is regularly depositing the rent in the Court. It is also contended that in family partition, rented shop fell in share of defendant 2 and he is carrying out his business in the shop since inception of tenancy. It is contended that the defendant 1 also submitted an application to the plaintiffs requesting to transfer the tenancy in favour of defendant 2, but nothing was done. It is also contended that the plaintiff is a registered trust, therefore, without written consent of all the trustees, the suit could not have been filed. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined Arvind Chaturvedi (PW/1), Y.K. Pandey (PW/2) and produced Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/7). In support of his case, the defendant 2 examined himself-Virendra Kumar (DW/1), Dhanpal Patel (DW/2), Kamal Soni (DW/3), Mahesh Chandra Jain (DW/4) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/3).

6. After hearing the parties, Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 dismissed the suit. Upon filing civil appeal by the plaintiffs, First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.11.2