IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 33 of 2004 HANUMAN PRASAD KADERE (DIED) THR. LRS.

Versus KESHAV PRASAD PANDEY Appearance:

Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for appellant (LRs.).

Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for respondent.

JUDGMENT This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 01/01/2004 passed by the District Judge, Datia, in Civil Appeal No. 19A/2002, as well as judgment and decree dated 23/08/2002 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Datia, in Civil Suit No. 43A/1996, by which a decree of eviction has been passed against the appellant under Sections 12(1)(b) and 12(1)(f)

of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

2. Original defendant/appellant Hanumandas died during the pendency of this appeal, and accordingly, his legal representatives are prosecuting this appeal.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of appellant/defendant from the disputed shop situated in Datia, ahead of Quila. It is the case of plaintiff that earlier, on 14/06/1964, father of appellant/defendant, namely Bhagwandas, had taken the shop on rent on a monthly rent of Rs. 22/-. After the death of Bhagwandas, defendant Hanumandas came in possession of the suit shop as a tenant. Plaintiff had also got the necessary repair works done, and about 23 years back, defendant was given the tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 28/-. By amendment, it was incorporated that a rent deed was also executed by defendant on 21/02/1970 and at that time, landlords of the suit shop were plaintiff and his brother Balkrishna. Thereafter, Balkrishna got separated, and accordingly, plaintiff became the sole owner and landlord of the suit shop. Thereafter, an oral tenancy was created in favour of defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 28/-, and as per the oral tenancy, period of tenancy was 10 months. However, even after the expiry of that tenancy period, tenancy was not terminated for the reason that in view of the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, defendant cannot be evicted on the ground that the period of tenancy has come to an end. The monthly tenancy of defendant was from the first day of the English calendar month till last date of the English calendar month. Earlier, plaintiff was in the service as a Principal in Government College, Kolaras, District Shivpuri, and he has retired from the said college with effect from 31/07/1995. Plaintiff is physically and mentally fit, and he is also in possession of sufficient funds to start his business. The shop in question is the ancestral property of plaintiff in which his son Ravi Kumar Pandey has a right from his birth. Ravi Kumar Pandey has also attained majority. He has also passed the Senior Secondary Examination. It was claimed that son of plaintiff is unemployed and he is neither cultivating the land nor giving the tractor or thresher on rent. He is also not in the business of supply of building material. It was denied that income of the son of plaintiff is Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- per month. It was further claimed by way of amendment that since the suit has been filed for eviction, therefore, question of title cannot be decided. It was claimed that the plaintiff, along with his son, wants to open a stationery and book shop for which he has sufficient means and experience. Therefore, it was claimed that plaintiff is in bona fide need of the suit shop for non- residential purpose. It was also claimed that plaintiff is not the owner and in possession of any other shop in the city of Datia. It was further claimed that defendant is not doing any business from the shop in question, but he is running a separate business of bamboo from a shop situated on Bihari Ji Road, Datia, and the shop, which is disputed in the present case, has been sublet by defendant/appellant to one Narayan Das, and Narayan Da