##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33871

1 SA-2608-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 24 OF DECEMBER, 2025

SECOND APPEAL No. 2608 of 2025

ANAND KISHORE SACHDEVA

Versus

SANJAY AGARWAL

Appearance:

Mr. N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal Mangal -

Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Baldev Chhahira - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER

1. The appellant/defendant has filed this second appeal under Section

100 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated

05.08.2025 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Regular

Civil Appeal No.174/2025, arising out of judgment and decree, dated

28.02.2025, passed by Twelfth Civil Judge Junior Division, Gwalior in Civil

Suit No.13-A of 2016.

2. For purposes of convenience, the appellant is referred as defendant

and respondent is referred to as plaintiff in the instant suit. The suit shop

would mean the shop situated at ground floor of the building situated at

Kalimai Santar Maal Road, Morar, having Municipal House No.221, Ward

No.27, Region No.9, District Gwalior.

3. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed between the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAHUL SINGH

PARIHAR

Signing time: 24-Dec-25

6:58:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33871

2 SA-2608-2025

parties. As per the plaintiff's pleading in plaint, the defendant is tenant in one

corner shop situated at ground floor at the rate of rent of Rs.303/- per month

and is running his business of sweet in the said shop. There are four shops

situated on the ground floor of the building. One shop is in the occupation in

the tenant while one shop is given jointly to one Mr. Manish Gaud and Mr.

Alok Gangil. It is also pleaded that, ass per their convenience, Manish &

Alok separated the suit shop with wooden partition and were running their

business. During the pendency of suit, Manish left the possession of his

portion of the shop in favour of the plaintiff and the remaining portion of the

shop remained in possession of Alok Gangil. The amendment to this effect

was made by the plaintiff in his plaint.

4. The plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction on the ground under

Section 12(1)(c), (d) & (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Regarding

his need, which is the subject matter of consideration of this appeal, the

plaintiff pleaded that he requires the suit shop bonafide to start his electronic

business in the suit shop. It was his case that for starting his business, he has

no alternate accommodation available. It was also pleaded that other shops

on the ground floor were occupied by tenants on the date of filing of suit.

Later on, amendment was made in plaint to the effect that during pendency

of suit, possession of half portion of shop occupied by Manish was handed

over to plaintiff. It was pleaded that this half portion of shop does not satisfy

plaintiff's requirement.

5. After taking evidence of both the sides, the learned Trial Court

decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2025, thereby

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAHUL SINGH

PARIHAR

Signing time: 24-Dec-25

6:58:34 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33871

3 SA-2608-2025

directing the eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground

under Section 12(f) of the Act. The learned Trial Court also directed for

payment of rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month three years prior to filing

of suit. The defendant challenged the judgment and decree passed by learned

Trial Court by filing the appeal, which too has been dismissed vide

impugned judgment and decree. The finding with regard to bonafide need of

plaintiff has been affirmed while a direction has been issued to defendant to

pay Rs.2000/- per month to the plaintiff from the date of filing of suit, in

addition to what was directed by learned Trial Court. Challenging the

judgment and decree passed by courts below, the defendant is before this

Court.

6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendant argued that

the shop in