IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR ON THE 19TH OF FEBRUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2012 RAMCHANDRA AMLANI Versus SHRI VITTHAL DAS Appearance:

Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri Manuraj Singh, advocate for appellant.

Shri Ashok Chitale, Senior Advocate with Shri Abhimanyu Sanap, advocate for respondent.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed partially aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2012 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 19 of 2011 by the IX Additional District Judge Indore, whereby the first appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2010 passed by IV Civil Judge Class I Indore was dismissed and judgment and decree for eviction of appellant/defendant was affirmed.

2. Vitthaldas Sethiya (the respondent in present second appeal) filed suit for eviction against Ramchand (the appellant in present second appeal) and Prakashchand from House No. 20, Santha Bazar No. 18 at Marothia Bazar Indore. According to the plaint averments, defendant Ramchandra is tenant in a shop and a room at monthly rent of Rs. 1300/-. The plaintiff had purchased the tenanted premises from Ali Hussain vide registered sale deed dated 19.1.2000. The defendant had taken the premises from plaintiff on rent @ Rs. 1430/- per month for cloth business. The plaintiff is cotton broker and transport commission agent. He is in bonafide need of the tenanted premises for his business. The plaintiff has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Indore for his business. The defendant has not paid the rent for 13 months. The defendant has installed the hoarding in the name of “Amrit collection” at the entrance of the plaintiff in his house and caused nuisance to the plaintiff. The defendant has handed over the possession of the tenanted shop to defendant no.2 Prakashchand. Therefore, defendant be evicted from tenanted premises and directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.

18,590/- and the mesne profit.

3. The defendant filed written statement admitting that he is tenant of the plaintiff @ Rs. 1430/- per month in the suit premises. The defendant specifically denied all other plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff desires to raise the rate of rent. The plaintiff is aged around 65 years, he does not require tenanted premises for his business. The plaintiff runs Grocery and Dry Fruit business. He has other shops and house available, therefore, the tenanted premises is not required bonafide for business of the plaintiff. Prakash Chand is temporary salaried employee. He has not parted possession of the tenanted premises with Prakashchand.

4. The defendant No.2 Prakashchand submitted separate written statement inter-alia stating that he is salesman of defendant No. 1. He assists defendant no. 1 in conduct of business on monthly salary and bonus.

5. The trial Court framed the issues and recorded evidence. On completion of trial, the IV Civil Judge Class I Indore in civil suit No. 38A/2010 passed the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2010 concluding that the grounds for eviction under Section 12(i)(a) and 12(i)(f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are proved and directed for eviction of tenant/ defendant and payment of rent @ Rs. 1430/- per month w.e.f. 1.02.2006 alongwith mesne profit of Rs 1430/- from the date of judgment.

6. The defendant preferred first appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2010 passed in civil suit No. 38A/2010. The IX Additional District Judge, Indore in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19/2011 partially allowed the appeal regarding ground of eviction under Section 12(i)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, while affirming the judgment and decree for eviction on the ground of bonafide need of the plaintiff for his business under 12(i)(f) of the Act.

7. The present second appeal, assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19/2001, is f