IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL th ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 400 of 2014 NAUSHAD BI @ GUDDO BI AND OTHERS Versus MUS. KHUTAIJA BEGUM ___________________________________________________________

Appearance:

Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar with Shri Yash Nitin Naseri -Advocates for the appellants.

Shri Raja Bhaiya Tiwari - Advocate for the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________________

J U D G M E N T This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2014 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No.3A/2014 reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2011 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-I, Chhindwara, in Civil Suit No.56-A/2011, whereby Trial Court dismissed the respondent/plaintiff’s suit for eviction of residential premises filed on the grounds of defaults in making payment of monthly rent and bonafide requirement of residence available under Section 12(1)(a)&(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and in civil appeal filed by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court has decreed the suit on the ground of defaults in making payment of monthly rent, available under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, however, affirmed the rejection of ground of bonafide requirement available under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act.

2. In short, the facts are that the respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit for eviction of residential accommodation comprising two rooms admeasuring 9’x10’ feet each including latrine & bathroom with the allegations that the plaintiff is owner and landlord of the rented house and the defendants are her tenants on monthly rent of Rs.300/-, who were inducted by the plaintiff’s husband Mohd. Akhtar Qureshi. It is alleged that the plaintiff is in need of the rented accommodation for her residence and there is no other alternative vacant accommodation available in the township of Chhindwara. It is also alleged that the defendants are in arrears of rent and they did not pay the same in spite of service of demand notice dated 22.02.2007 (Ex.P/3). On inter alia allegations the suit was filed for eviction as well as for arrears of rent.

3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement and contended that after death of original landlord Akhtar Qureshi, there are other legal heirs of his, who are also owners of the suit property, which was given to the defendants on monthly rent of Rs.300/-, in which electricity charges were also included. Since the plaintiff did not continue the facility of electricity for last six months, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay only Rs.150/- per month. It is also contended that the rent was tendered to the plaintiff, but was denied by her. The plaintiff is also not in need of the rented house and she is already in possession of several other alternative accommodations and just with a view to enhancing the monthly rent, the suit has been filed. 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 her case, the plaintiff examined herself - Mst. Khutaija Begum (PW/1) & Saleem Khan (PW/2) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/7). Similarly, the defendants also examined defendant 2-Shaikh Shabbir (DW/1) and submitted documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/3).

5. Thereafter, the Trial Court heard final arguments and vide judgment and decree dated 13.04.2011 decreed the suit on the ground available under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, but in civil appeal preferred by the defendants, First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.09.2011 reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the suit to the Trial Court for decision afresh. Thereafter, the Trial Court again pas