##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9354

1 SA-261-2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

th

ON THE 29 OF JANUARY, 2026

SECOND APPEAL No. 261 of 2014

MANOHARLAL LOHIYA AGRAWAL

Versus

OMPRAKASH AGRAWAL

Appearance:

Shri Shri Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Arpit Agrawal, Advocate for

respondent.

ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the

appellant/defendant/tenant challenging the judgment and decree dtd.

05.12.2013 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Regular

Civil Appeal No.36A/2012 affirming the judgment and decree dtd.

20.10.2011 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Tikamgarh in Civil Suit

No.9A/2011 whereby both the Courts below have concurrently decreed the

respondents (original plaintiff-Om Prakash Agrawal)' suit for eviction on the

ground of bonafide requirement of son-Amit Kumar Agrawal available under

Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short

"the Act").

2. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Courts

below, instant second appeal was filed and admitted by this Court for final

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SATTYENDAR

NAGDEVE

Signing time: 03-02-2026

11:17:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9354

2 SA-261-2014

hearing on 03.07.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:

"1.Whether the learned courts below are justified in passing the

impugned judgment and decree on the ground of Section 12(1)(f)

of M.P. Accommodation Control, Act, 1961 in the absence of

proof of ownership of suit which legally fell in partition in the

share of plaintiff and for which there was no pleading in the

plaint?

2. Whether courts below are justified in passing the impugned

judgment and decree in the absence of availability of alternative

accommodation during the pendency of the suit for which

appellant/defendant has moved an application for taking

documents on record and which has been dismissed during the

trial?

3. Whether learned lower appellate court is justified in rejecting

the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC regarding

availability of alternative accommodation?

4. Whether lower appellate court is justified in rejecting the

application filed under Order 41 Rule 23(A) of CPC for framing

issues with regard to suit premises which was let out by Ayodhya

Prasad Motial?"

3. As has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant,

there is no dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the

parties and both the Courts below have decreed the suit for eviction on the

ground of bonafide requirement of the business available under Section 12(1)

(f) of the Act and there is no other suitable alternative vacant accommodation

available with the respondents/plaintiff.

4. In the case of Kishore Singh vs. Satish Kumar Singhvi, 2017(3) JLJ

375, a coordinate Bench of this Court has relied upon the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem

Machinary and Company, AIR 2000 SC 534, and held that the findings

recorded on the question of bonafide requirement do not give rise to any

substantial question of law.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SATTYENDAR

NAGDEVE

Signing time: 03-02-2026

11:17:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9354

3 SA-261-2014

5. Even after arguing at length, learned counsel for the

appellant/defendant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity

in the concurrent judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Courts

below and faced with the legal position he prays for withdrawal of the

second appeal upon granting time to vacate the suit/rented shop upto

30.04.2027, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the

respondents/plaintiff.

6. In view of the aforesaid unopposed prayer made by learned counsel

for the appellant/defendant, however by declining interference in the

impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, this Court deems

fit to grant time for vacating the suit/rented premises upto 3