IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 1119 of 2013 NARESH PRASAD GUPTA Versus MADHUR GOLANI Appearance:

Shri Vikram Johari - Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the respondent.

JUDGMENT This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 13/11/2013 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCA No.159/2013 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21/2/2013 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal in RCS No.29A/2010, whereby Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction of shop No.78-B by holding the respondent/defendant to be a licensee in the suit shop and in civil appeal preferred by the respondent/defendant, First Appellate Court by reversing the judgment and decree of Trial Court, dismissed the suit by holding the defendant to be a tenant in the shop.

2. In short, the facts are that the plaintiff had instituted the suit with the allegations that the defendant was inducted in the shop as a licensee by way of written agreement of license dated 1/5/2008 (Ex.P/1) on monthly rent of Rs.2,200/-. It is alleged that the shop was given on license for a period from 1/5/2008 to 31/3/2009 and upon expiry of the said period, a notice dated 30/5/2009 (Ex.P/2) was also issued cancelling the license, but the defendant did not vacate the shop and alleged himself to be a tenant in the shop. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed.

3. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that he is not the licensee in the shop and he being a tenant, the suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues and recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing arguments, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21/2/2013 by holding the defendant to be a licensee in the shop on rent of Rs.2,200/- per month.

5. Upon filing civil appeal by the defendant, First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13/11/2013 by holding that the defendant is not a licensee, but he is a tenant in the suit shop.

6. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court, instant second appeal was preferred by the plaintiff, which was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1) Whether the lower appellate court erred in holding that the defendant is a tenant in view of judgment and decree dated 13.7.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.156-A/2009 (Ex.P/5) particularly when the learned trial court recorded a categorical finding that the parties are bound by the aforesaid judgment and decree.?

2) Whether the finding recorded by the learned appellate court that the defendant is a tenant and not a licensee is barred by principle of res-judicata.?"

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the agreement dated

1/5/2008 (Ex.P/1) as well as the judgment and decree dated 13/7/2010 (Ex.P/5) passed in Civil Suit No.156A/2010 show that the defendant is a licensee in the shop and as such, Trial Court rightly decreed the suit, but First Appellate Court has committed an illegality in reversing the judgment and decree ignoring the said documentary evidence. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the second appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that since exclusive possession of the shop was given alongwith keys, therefore, First Appellate Court has rightly held the defendant to be a tenant in the shop and has not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit and still the plaintiff can file fresh suit for eviction on the ground, if any, available under Section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 . With these submissi