IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6717 of 2025 VIMAL KUMAR JAIN Versus HITKARINI SABHA JABALPUR A SOCITEY REGISTERED UNDER SOCITEY REGISTRATION ACT Appearance:

Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER By way of this petition challenge is made to orders dated 08-07-2025 and 11-11.2025 passed by the trial court in an eviction suit filed against the petitioner tenant.

2. Identical petition filed by another tenant raising same and similar grounds has already been rejected by this Court in M.P. No. 6714/2025 (Ganesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Hitkarni Sabha Jabalpur). This Court in the aforesaid order has passed the following order.

"The present petition has been filed by the defendant/tenant challenging the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has rejected application for discovery and production of documents under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant.

2. It is the case of petitioner/defendant that the documents which were sought to be discovered by submitting application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, were relevant to the facts in issue arising in the suit and the trial Court has erroneously rejected the application noting that a similar application had been rejected on 08.07.2021 and no repeat application was maintainable. It is further contended that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application because suit has been filed by the landlord which is a public institution and a registered society running educational institutions and the documents which were sought are very much relevant for the issues arising in the suit and these documents ought to have been allowed to be discovered by allowing the application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC.

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on the perusal of the record, it is seen that a suit has been filed by the respondent/landlord which is a registered society running educational institutions on the assertion that there is a market constructed by the society in Medicine Market in which various shops have been constructed from which the society earns rent and is utilising the proceeds for various activities of the society including running Colleges and other educational institutions which are for charitable purposes.

4. It is contended by the plaintiff that all the tenants have agreed to enhance the rent but since the present defendant/petitioner has not consented for increasing the rent as per the present market rates but is insisting on paying rent only at the rate of Rs.480/- per month, therefore, the shop be evicted so that it can be utilised by the society for its own activities or to be used in any other manner to raise funds. It is further the case of plaintiff that the tenure of the tenancy has come to an end and for this reason also eviction is being sought.

5. As per Section 20 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, special provisions have been enacted for eviction/recovery of possession where the premises are given on rent by any public institution which is different from the usual grounds of eviction as laid down in Section 12 of the said Act.

6. As per Section 20 of the Act, the following provisions have been made:-

"20. Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases. - Where the landlord in respect of any accommodation is any company or other body corporate or any local authority or any public institution and the accommodation is required for the use of employees of such landlord, or, in the case of a public institution, for the furtherance of its activities, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 12 or in any other law, the Court may, on a suit being filed before it in this behalf by such landlord, place the landlord in vacant possession of such accommodation by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation thereof, if the Court is satisfied-

(a) that the tena