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

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 1238 of 2025 KHUMAN SINGH @ KHUMARAM Versus SANJAY GOYAL Appearance:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain - Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Anand Raghuwanshi - Advocate for respondent on caveat.

JUDGMENT The second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the th judgment and decree dated 03/04/2025 passed by 6 District Judge, Shivpuri, District Shivpuri in R.C.A. No. 188/2024, as well as judgment and decree dated th

13/02/2024 passed by the 4 Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shivpuri, District Shivpuri in Regular Civil Suit No. 5A/2022, by which a decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been passed. 2. At the outset, it was submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant is aged about 90 years, and therefore, he may be granted three years' time to vacate the suit premises.

3. The Court was shocked after hearing the prayer made by counsel for appellant.

4. When this Court refused to grant three years' time to vacate the premises, then it is submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant is of the view that since he is in possession of the suit shop as a tenant, therefore, in case if he is evicted, then he may not survive.

5. Aforesaid submission made by counsel for appellant was more shocking.

How a tenant can claim that he should be allowed to remain in a tenant premises, and in case if he is evicted, then he will not survive?

6. Be that whatever it may be. Looking to a very shocking stand of appellant, this Court refused to grant any time to vacate the suit premises and requested the appellant to argue the matter on merits.

7. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against appellant on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide requirement for non- residential purposes. It is the case of respondent that son of the respondent is running a business in the name of "Fashion Men’s Wear". Rented premises is situated by the side of the shop in possession of the son of respondent. Since the front part of shop of son of the respondent is very less, therefore, it is clearly not visible from the main road. Accordingly, it was claimed that after the suit premises is vacated, plaintiff would remove the wall and front of shop "Fashion Men’s Wear" which is being run by the son of plaintiff would get widened, and the shop of his son would be visible from the main road, and it would become a showroom. Expansion of the front portion of the shop of the son of plaintiff would enhance the business, and it would also be convenient for the customers to visit the shop, and thus, it was claimed that the suit shop is bona fidely required for non-residential purposes of widening the shop of his son. It was further claimed that except the suit premises, no other shop is available with the plaintiff to cater his need for non-residential purposes. It was also the case of plaintiff that appellant/defendant is aged about 85 years and he is an old and infirm person. He is not in a position to run any business. He has also stopped purchasing new goods, and in fact, no stock is available in the disputed shop. He, with an intention to keep possession over the shop in question, visits the shop occasionally. He is financially strong person, and at present he is not running any business, and he is no more in need of the suit shop. Plaintiff had also sent a registered notice on 14/12/2021, which was received by defendant on 15/12/2021. However, even after 15 days from the date of receiving the notice, defendant/appellant has not vacated the suit premises. Suit was also filed on the ground of arrears of rent.

8. Defendant/appellant filed his written statement and claimed that he is regularly making payment of rent of the suit premises. He had regularly paid the rent up to October 2021. Thereafter, pla