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. 453 of 2003 GOPAL(DEAD) TH. L.R. KAMAL Versus DEVMURTI RADHA KRISHAN JI & ANR.

Appearance:

Mr. H.K.Shukla and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocates for appellant.

Mr. M. L. Sharma - Advocate for respondent No. 1.

JUDGMENT This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11/09/2003 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 22A/2003, as well judgment and decree dated 11/07/2002 passed by Third Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 290A/2001.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit against appellant and respondent No. 2 for eviction under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b), 12(1)(c), 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It was the case of plaintiff that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is the owner of property in dispute. One shop belonging to plaintiff was let out to defendant No. 1 and rent of the same was being paid to Puran Chand, who was the accountant. From 08/11/1965, defendant No. 1 has stopped making payment of rent. Accordingly, on

08/11/1965, a notice was given to defendant No. 1. However, defendant No. 1 has not paid the rent. Furthermore, defendant No. 1 has also encroached upon a platform. By virtue of the judgment and decree passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 8A/1965, plaintiff has become the owner of the property in dispute. Accordingly, a notice dated 04/06/1987 was given to defendant No. 1, thereby terminating the tenancy, but neither defendant No. 1 has paid the rent, nor the suit shop has been vacated, and even he has also not removed his encroachment from the platform. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 had sublet the suit premises to one Babulal Kushwah, and now respondent No. 1/defendant No. 2 - Natholi Kushwah is the sub-tenant, who has also started putting his handcart on the platform, which has been encroached upon by defendant No. 1. Accordingly, plaintiff is also entitled to get the suit shop vacated on the ground of subletting. Since defendant No. 1 has also encroached upon the property which was not let out to him, therefore, on that ground also, plaintiff is entitled to get the suit shop vacated, and accordingly, suit was filed for eviction on the above-mentioned grounds.

3. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and denied the ownership of plaintiff. It was claimed that plaintiff is a public, religious, and charitable trust and not a private trust. Plaintiff’s averments with regard to various grounds were denied. It was denied that defendant is in arrears of rent. It was denied that defendant has sublet the property. By way of special pleadings, it was pleaded that plaintiff is a religious and charitable trust which was constructed by Seth Chhatrapal, and five trustees were appointed by Chhatrapal with liberty to the trustees to appoint their successors. Even an order in that regard was also passed by the High Court. Since plaintiff is a public trust, therefore, without registration, it cannot maintain a suit as per Section 32 of the Public Trust Act, and the suit is liable to be stayed. All the trustees have not been impleaded. Chhatrapal had inducted the father of defendant No. 1, namely Khargo, as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 4/-. Khargo remained in possession as a tenant during his lifetime, and after his death, defendant Gopal and daughter of Khargo, namely Ramo, came in possession as tenants. Ramo has not been impleaded as a party, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. In fact, the platform was also let out to Khargo. Plaintiff has claimed time barred arrears, therefore, he cannot claim arrears of rent beyond the period of three years, and it was claimed that the suit be dism