##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4752

1 SA-326-2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 4 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

SECOND APPEAL No. 326 of 2004

HARI SHANKAR SHARMA

Versus

RAJU @ RAJENDRA KUMAR

Appearance:

Shri Anand V. Bhardwaj, Advocate for appellant.

Shri P.C.Chandil, Advocate for respondent.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against

the judgment and decree dated 28/4/2004 passed by VIII Additional District

Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.66A/2003 by which the judgment and

decree dated 30/10/2003 passed by IX Civil Judge Class I, Gwalior in Civil

Suit No.56A/02 was set aside and suit filed by appellant for eviction of

respondent was dismissed.

2. Heard on IA Nos. 2084/2007 and 3662/2014.

3. These are applications for striking out the defence of

defendant/respondent.

4. A detailed reply has been filed by the respondent pointing out that

there is no default in payment of rent.

5. After going through the reply, it has also been admitted by counsel

for appellant that there is no default in payment of rent.

6. Accordingly IA Nos. 2084/2007 and 3662/2014 are hereby

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND

SHRIVASTAVA

Signing time: 06-02-2026

18:52:28

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4752

2 SA-326-2004

rejected.

7. Since the controversy revolves in a very narrow compass, therefore,

it is not necessary to mention the factual matrix in detail.

8. Appellant filed a suit for eviction from the shop in question on the

ground of 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for

short "the Act"). The trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction under section

12(1)(c) of the Act, but granted a decree under section 12(1)(f) of the Act,

thereby holding that appellant is in bonafide need of the suit shop for his son

for non-residential purposes.

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial

Court, the tenant/respondent preferred an appeal and by the impugned

judgment and decree, the appellate Court has set aside the judgment and

decree passed by the trial Court and held that plaintiff has failed to prove that

he is in bonafide need for non-residential purposes.

10. By order dated 25/4/2007, the present second appeal was admitted

on the following substantial questions of law:-

"(i) Whether the learned lower appellate court by over looking the

important piece of oral and documentary evidence committed

legal error in dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff ?

(ii) Whether the learned first appellate court committed error in

not granting decree under section 12(1)(c) of the M.P.

Accommodation Control Act ?"

11. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that so far as the

substantial question of law No.(ii) is concerned, he would not press the same.

Accordingly, the substantial question of law No. (ii) is answered in negative

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND

SHRIVASTAVA

Signing time: 06-02-2026

18:52:28

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4752

3 SA-326-2004

as not pressed.

(i) Whether the learned lower appellate court by over looking the

important piece of oral and documentary evidence committed legal error in

dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff ?

12. So far as the aforesaid substantial question of law is concerned,

although it is not happily worded and it gives the glimpse that the factual

aspects are involved, but it is submitted by Shri Anand Bhadwaj that this

Court in exercise of power under section 100(5) of CPC can reformulate or

can frame an additional substantial question of law relating to bonafide need

of appellant for non-residential purposes.

13. Since the decree passed in favor of plaintiff under section 12(1)(f)

of the Act was set aside by the appellate Court, therefore, the substantial

question of law No. (i) shall be considered only in respect of bonafide need

for non-residential purposes.

14. It has been admitted by plaintiff that during the pendency of the

suit, three different suits against three different tenants were pending.