The court ruled on the application of res judicata and highlighted the necessity of documenting landlord-tenant relationships for eviction claims under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 17^th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 194 of 2001 RAJENDRA KUMAR Versus SANTOSH GADHEL Appearance:

Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Priyank Awasthi - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Avinash Zargar and Shri Gouransh Bhurrak - Advocate for the respondent.

J U D G M E N T This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2000 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in civil appeal no.25- A/1997 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1997 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Khandwa in civil suit no.10-A/1989, whereby trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of denial of title available under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), however refused the eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) & (f) of the Act, and in civil appeal filed by the respondent/defendant, First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and dismissed the suit and at the same time dismissed the cross objection also filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) & (f) of the Act. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT

2. In short, the facts are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction of non-residential rented premises with the allegations that plaintiff purchased the property including the rented premises vide registered sale deed dated 06.06.1987 from its owner Sukhdev Yadav (plaintiff's father), accordingly the plaintiff is owner and landlord because the defendant is tenant in the premises on rent of Rs.50/- per month. It is alleged that the plaintiff has purchased the property for construction of residential house and for this purpose, he has also obtained permission on 30.05.1988 (Ex.P/4) from Nagar Palik Nigam, Khandwa and he is having sufficient funds for raising construction and the same is not possible without vacation of rented premises by the defendant. It is also alleged that the plaintiff is in need of the rented premises/shop for starting Kirana business. It is also alleged that defendant is carrying out flour mill in the rented premises which is causing nuisance and the defendant has also denied title by alleging Shri Laxmi Narayan Mandir Trust to be owner of the suit premises. It is also alleged that despite issuance/service of notice dated 29.10.1988 (Ex.P/6) the defendant has not paid rent with effect from 01.07.1988 to 31.12.1988, hence he is liable to be evicted from the shop. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed.

3. The respondent/defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that the suit property belongs to Shri Laxmi Narayan Mandir Trust and the plaintiff has got a sham sale deed executed through his father Sukhdev Yadav and in that regard Shri Laxmi Narayan Mandir Trust has already filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that defendant is tenant of the Trust and he be directed to pay rent to the Trust and not to the plaintiff.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT It is denied that the plaintiff is in need of the shop for raising construction and for starting business, who is already in government service. It is also denied that the defendant is in arrears of rent or has caused any nuisance by carrying out the business of flour mill. 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. In support of his case the plaintiff examined himself-Rajendra Kumar Yadav (PW/1), Sukhdev (PW/2), Suresh (PW/3), Mangal Singh Thakur (PW/4) and produced documentary evidence (Ex