IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

SECOND APPEAL No. 416 of 2004

SHRI KRISHAN GAUR (DELETED) THR. LRS. SACHIDANAND GAUR

AND ANOTHER

Versus

SMT. SARWATI BAI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Anmol Khedkar, Advocate for LRs of appelllant.

Shri Rohit Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SECOND APPEAL No. 276 of 2004

SMT. SARASWATI BAI (DELETED) AND ANOTHER

Versus

SHRI KRISHNA GOUR (DELETED) THROUGH LRS.

SACHIDANAND GAUR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Rohit Bansal, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Anmol Khedkar, Advocate for LRs of respondent No. 1.

Reserved on : 18/12/2025 Pronounced on: 14/01/2026

JUDGMENT decree dated 25/9/2001 passed by VIII Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 50A/98.

By this common judgement S.A. No.276/2004 shall also be

decided.

2. Both the second appeals have been filed against the judgement

and decree dated 5/3/2004 passed by VI Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 2A/2001, arising out of judgment and

3. S.A. No. 416/2004 has been filed by the plaintiff/landlord against the part of judgement and decree passed by the appellate Court by which the decree awarded by the trial Court under section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short "the Act") has been set aside, whereas S.A. No. 276/2004 has been filed by the tenant against the impugned judgement and decree passed by the appellate Court by which a decree of eviction under section 12(1)

(b) of the Act has been passed.

4. By order dated 7/2/2008, S.A. No. 416/2004 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"(1) "Whether the first appellate court erred in law while condoning the delay in payment of rent and ignored the provisions of Section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act while dismissing the suit under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act?

(2) "Whether the first appellate court committed an error in dismissing the suit under Section 12 (1) (o) of the M.P.

Accommodation Control Act?""

5. By order dated 7/2/2008, S.A. No. 276/2004 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"(1) "Whether the courts below committed error in granting the decree under Section 12 (1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act when it is an admitted fact that the portion encroached and sub-letted by the appellants is not the premises given on rent?"

(2) "Whether the courts below have acted illegally in overlooking that the word "Accommodation" employed in Section 12 (1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act refers to an accommodation obtained on rent and will not extend to an accommodation beyond the premises given on rent by the landlord?""

6. IA No. 7074/2023 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC in S.A. No. 416/2004.

7. Counsel for appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.

8. The I.A. is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

9. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeals, in short, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction as well as recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that plaintiff is owner/landlord of the suit house and defendant is a tenant on a monthly tenancy of Rs.25/-. The tenancy is verbal starting from first day of every month and comes to an end on last day of that month. It was the case of plaintiff that portion marked as "A" in the plaint map was let-out to defendant, whereas the portion marked as "B" has been encroached upon by the defendant, who had installed a tin-shed on the open land which was removed by the Municipal Corporation. However, again on 12/3/1994, defendant reinstalled the tin-shed without permission of plaintiff as well as the Municipal Corporation and has also constructed a platform in front of the same. It was further pleaded that defendant is in habit of not making payment of rent on time and whenever the rent was demanded, she always picked up a quarrel. On 1/10/1993, son of defendant Prakash paid Rs.300/- towards arrears of rent. A notice dated 26/12