IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 206 of 2005 NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS Versus KALYAN SINGH CHAUHAN Appearance:

Shri Harish Dixit - Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Parth Dixit - Advocate for appellant.

None for respondent.

JUDGMENT This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 01.11.2004 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 109-A/2004, by which judgment and decree dated 28.08.2001 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 14-A/1997 was reversed and decree under Section

12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been passed.

2. By order dated 25.02.2014, this appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law:

"(a) Whether in the absence of an issue on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the learned first appellate court was justified in decreeing the suit against the appellant/tenant?

(b) Whether the finding about rate of rent was perverse owing to admission of the plaintiff himself in the rent note (Ex.D/1) executed in favour of the appellant?"

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction under Sections 12(1)(d) and 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Case of plaintiff was that appellant/defendant/tenant is not residing in the suit premises, and therefore, he is liable to be evicted under Section 12(1)(d) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

4. Trial Court, as well as First Appellate Court, held that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant/appellant is not residing in the suit premises for the last more than six months. However, suit filed by plaintiff for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was also dismissed by the Trial Court.

5. From paragraph 11 of the judgment passed by First Appellate Court, it is clear that provisional rent was fixed by the Trial Court by order dated 19.04.1999 at the rate of Rs. 425/- per month and appellant/defendant/tenant had deposited the rent of 29 months, i.e., Rs. 12,325/- for the period 01.01.1996 to 31.05.1999, whereas during this period, rent of 41 months was outstanding. Under these circumstances, First Appellate Court held that appellant had committed default in depositing the rent regularly, and thus, decree under Section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was passed by the First Appellate Court.

6. Counsel for appellant could not controvert the aforesaid finding recorded by the First Appellate Court in paragraph 11 of impugned judgment. Thus, it is clear that appellant had failed to deposit entire rent of 41 months for the period 01.01.1996 to 31.05.1999 and had deposited a rent of only 29 months and also did not file any application for extension of time to deposit the rent.

7. Under these circumstances, First Appellate Court did not commit any mistake by granting a decree under Section 12(1)(a) of M.P.

Accommodation Control Act.

8. No arguments were advanced in respect of substantial question of law No. (b).

9. As no illegality could be pointed out by counsel for appellant, therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that no interference is required.

10. Ex consequenti, judgment and decree dated 01.11.2004 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No.

109-A/2004 is hereby affirmed.

11. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G. S. AHLUWALIA)

JUDGE AKS