IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 14 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 257 of 2003 HARCHARANLAL Versus RAMJI Appearance:

Shri Kailash Narayan Gupta Senior Advocate with Ms. Suhani Dhariwal- Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ravi Shankar Gupta- Advocate for the respondent No.1.

ORDER This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 05/03/2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Civil Appeal No.04/2000 as well as judgment and decree dated 14/03/2000 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Gohad, District Bhind in Civil Suit No.48-A/1998, by which the suit filed by appellant for eviction has been dismissed.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that appellant filed a suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,860/-. It is the case of appellant that one shop is situated in Temple Shri Kunj Bihari, Ward No.6, Gohad, District Bhind. Plaintiff is the Pujari and, therefore, he claimed himself to be the owner of shop in question. It was claimed that the shop was let out to the tenant by plaintiff on 19/08/1986 on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for a period of 11 months. A rent note was also executed. Defendant is in possession of disputed shop as a tenant from 19/08/1986. Defendant had paid the rent from 27/08/1988 till 19/08/1992, and thereafter, defendant has not paid the rent, and accordingly, it was claimed that an amount of Rs.1,800/- is outstanding towards the arrears of rent. It was also claimed that defendant is not using shop and shop has been locked, and accordingly, shop is not being used and defendant is intending to sub-let the shop whereas, according to the law, defendant has no right to sub-let the shop to somebody else. It was further claimed that plaintiff has no other shop in his possession. Plaintiff is unemployed and therefore, he wants to open a business of cloth, for which the plaintiff is having sufficient funds, and in the locality other cloth shops are also situated. The other shops of temple are in possession of other tenants, and therefore, it was claimed that the suit shop is bona fide required for non-residential purposes. Plaintiff sent a written notice to defendant on 20/12/1990, which was received by him on 26/12/1990, and in spite of termination of tenancy, he has not vacated the suit shop. Thus, the suit was filed for eviction as well as for recovery of Rs.1,860/-.

4. Respondent-tenant filed his written statement and claimed that plaintiff is not the owner of the property in dispute, and he is not Pujari. It was claimed that the legal representatives of Lachho Bai are the owners. It was claimed that defendant and his brother Om Prakash are in possession of the disputed shop in the capacity of tenants. Earlier, rent was being paid to Lachho Bai and her agent. Receipts were being issued by Lachho Bai in the name of brother of defendant. Thereafter, from the month of May 1986, plaintiff started issuing receipts in the name of defendant. It was claimed that defendant is running shop. All the plaint averments were denied. Defendant also claimed that he is not in arrears of rent of Rs.1,860/-. In the written statement, an amendment was carried out, and it was claimed that defendant has already deposited an amount of Rs.1,860/- in the Trial Court. The averment that defendant has closed the shop and is not doing any business was also denied. It was also denied that suit shop is bona fide required by plaintiff for non-residential purposes. By way of amendment, it was claimed that the suit shop belongs to late Lachho Bai and her legal representatives. It was specifically pleaded that suit shop is in the ownership of Temple Shri Kunj Bihari. It was claimed that another shop of plaintiff has recently fallen vacant, and therefore, plaintiff is otherwise having alte