IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA st ON THE 1 OF DECEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 1603 of 2005 RAMJI DAS (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Versus NATHULAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Appearance:

Mr. Naval Kumar Gupta - Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.D.S.

Bhadauriya - Advocate for appellant (LRs.).

Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for LRs. of respondent (LRs.).

JUDGMENT This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20/09/2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in Civil Appeal No. 21A/2001, as well as judgment and decree dated 20/08/2001 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Chachoda, District Guna in Civil Suit No. 173A/1996.

2. The original defendant Ramji Das expired during the pendency of this appeal, and accordingly, his legal representatives have been brought on record. Similarly, the original plaintiff Nathulal has also expired during the pendency of this appeal, and his legal representatives have been brought on record.

3. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether there can be subletting between father and son being members of Joint Hindu Family and without any finding with regard to commencement of sub-tenancy plaintiff's suit under Section 12 (1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Contril Act could be decreed ?"

4. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that original respondent Nathulal filed an application under Section 23A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act on the ground that the shop in question is in the joint ownership and possession of original plaintiff and his brother Babulal and nephew Mohanlal. The house is situated in Beenaganj, Ward No. 9, which is also known as Garad. A partition took place amongst plaintiff Babulal and Mohanlal. The northern side of the house came to the share of plaintiff. Defendant Ramji Das was the tenant prior to the partition, and after the partition, original tenant Ramji Das became the tenant of plaintiff. The shop was let out to tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. The tenancy was oral. On 07/12/1977, defendant Ramji Das became the tenant, but since no rent was paid, therefore, a notice was issued on 07/01/1984, which was refused by the tenant. Plaintiff has two children, namely Mahesh and Girdhar, who are unemployed, and the suit shop is bonafidely required for non-residential purposes. Girdhar wants to start a general store, and accordingly, a suit was filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide need for non-residential purposes as well as for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.

360/-.

5. During the pendency of the suit, an amendment was also carried out that defendant has now sublet the shop to his son Ghanshyam, for which he has no right. The application was filed before RCA for adjudication on merits, however, later on, it was transferred to civil Court in view of amendment in law.

6. Defendant filed a written statement and claimed that without following the procedure as laid down under Section 24 of CPC, matter has been directly transferred to the Trial Court, proper court fee has not been paid, Babulal and Mohanlal have not been made party, plaintiff is in habit of harassing the tenants, and his sole intention is to enhance the rent, the suit shop is not required bonafidely for non-residential purposes, sons of plaintiff are not unemployed, plaintiff is having multiple shops and houses, he is having petrol pump, readymade store, and is also a money lender, son of defendant is already running his shop, and being the son of his father, he cannot be treated as subtenant.

7. The Trial Court, after framing the issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit by holding that defendant has sublet the shop to his son. However, the claim of plaintiff that the suit shop is bonafidely required for non-residential purpose was not found to be proved.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, original de