##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN SECOND APPEAL No. 297 of 2012 PRADEEP KUMAR SINGHAI Versus DR. GHANSHYAM ATLANI Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Akshay Singh -

Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Ms. Disha Rohitas -

Advocate for the respondent.

JUDGMENT (Reserved on : 05.08.2026)

(Pronounced on : 19.08.2026)

The present second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the landlord being aggrieved by the concurrent dismissal of a civil suit for eviction against the respondent/defendant/tenant as his suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree 25.04.2011 against which the regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.8A of 2011 by the First Additional District Judge Waraseoni, District Balaghat. Now the plaintiff/landlord is before this Court in second appeal seeking a decree of eviction against the tenant. 2. The present second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law vide order dated 14.05.2015:-

“(1) Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 12(1)

(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act ?”

3. The appeal has, therefore, been admitted only in respect of the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "Act of 1961"), which relates to default in payment of rent by the tenant, which becomes a ground of eviction as per Section 12(1)(a).

4. An application under Section 100 (5) CPC has been filed by the appellant proposing additional substantial questions of law as under:-

“A Whether, in view of the admission of Defendant Ghanshyam Atlani (DW-1) that he is ready to vacate the suit shop for the purposes of construction of complex by the plaintiff, the Courts below ought to have granted decree for eviction in favour of plaintiff ?

B. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in not holding that the suit shop is bonafidely required by the plaintiff for construction of shopping complex which cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated ?”

5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the proposed question (B) in terms of I.A. No.4099 of 2025, which is under Section 100 (5) CPC deserves to be framed as it arises in the present appeal and therefore, the said substantial question of law is also framed.

6. The parties are heard on both the substantial questions of law.

7. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction on three grounds. Firstly, whether there are arrears of rent, secondly whether the defendant has committed nuisance by making material alterations in the suit shop and thirdly that the plaintiff requires the suit shop for bonafide need to reconstruct the entire property in which the suit shop is only a part and needs to be vacated and demolished for such construction.

8. The trial Court answered all the issues against the plaintiff and that has been affirmed by the Appellate Court.

9. Before this Court, the counsel for the appellant has pressed the appeal only on two grounds, i.e. the arrears of rent and bona fide need of the plaintiff to reconstruct the entire property to develop the entire property into a multi-storied commercial building of which the suit shop is a part.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that not only the findings of the Appellate Court and the trial Court in respect of the arrears of rent are erroneous, but during pendency of this appeal also the rent has not been paid at all for the period 2012 to 2016, and the rent whatever has been paid, is for period after 2017 only, and that too has not been paid regularly, but is erratic in nature. The rent for the period 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2