(BY SHRI H.K. UPADHYAY-ADVOCATE ) v. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, court passed

SMT. MANIRANI BAJAJ W/O SURESH CHAND BAJAJ , AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THR. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SURESH CHAND BAJAJ, PRESENTLY REST. AT H.NO. 1682 SARASWATI COLONY CHERITAL JABALPUR DIST. JABALPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANT (BY SHRI H.K. UPADHYAY-ADVOCATE ) .....RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the following: ORDER T his second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2021 passed by II Additional District Judge, Hata, District Damoh in RCA-06/2019, whereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2019 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Hata, District Damoh in Civil Suit No.500043-A/2016 whereby suit for eviction has been decreed under the general Act (i.e. the Transfer of Property Act) because SANSignature Not SANSignature Not Verified Verified SWETA SAHU SWETA SAHU 15:21:26 IST 15:21:26 IST 2 of situation of disputed shop in village and tehsil Hata, as the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Rent Act") are not applicable which has also been mentioned by learned trial court in para 32 of its judgment.

#2. Although in some paragraphs, learned courts below have considered the case from the angle of availability of grounds under Section 12(1)(a)(c) and (f) of the Rent Act, but in view of the aforesaid undisputed factual position, the decree of eviction passed by learned courts below is being treated a decree of eviction under the general law (i.e. the Transfer of Property Act).

#3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the shop in question was given to the appellant/tenant for doing the Luhar business, therefore, the same being for the manufacturing purpose, notice (Ex.P-35) ought to have been issued mentioning the period of six months and the suit ought to have been filed after expiry of period of six months. As the notice was issued on 14.07.2016 and suit was filed on 11.11.2016, therefore the same is pre- mature and no decree on the basis of notice (Ex. P-35) could have been passed even under the general Act. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays for admission of the appeal.

#4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a written agreement of tenancy (Ex. P-34) in between the parties, clause 1 of which clearly shows that the tenancy in between the parties is month to month and there is no evidence available on record to show that the shop in question was given for manufacturing purpose. Accordingly, learned courts below have not committed any illegality in passing decree of eviction.

#5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3

#6. As provisions of the Rent Act are not applicable to the present case, therefore, the defendant was required to be issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which was issued on 14.07.2016 (Ex. P-35) whereby tenancy of the defendant had been terminated and only after a period of about four months the suit was filed. As such there is sufficient compliance of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and there is no evidence available on record to the effect that shop was given for manufacturing purpose, therefore, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has no force.

#7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.

#8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant prays for time to vacate the suit shop. In the interest of justice and looking to the period of tenancy, one year time for vacating the suit shop is granted on the following conditions:- (i) The appellant/defendant shall vacate the suit shop on or before

30.06.2023. ( i i ) The appellant/defendant shall regularly pay rent to the respondent/plaintiff and shall also clear all the dues, if any, including the costs of the litigation, if any, imposed by learned Courts below. ( iii) The appellant/defendant shall not part with the suit property to anybody and shall not change nature of the suit shop. ( iv ) The appellant/defendant shall furnish an undertaking with regard to the aforesaid conditions within a period of 3 weeks from today before learned Court below/Executing Court. 4 (v) If the defendant/appellant fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent/plaintiff shall be free to execute the decree forthwith. (vi) If after filing of the undertaking, the defendant/appellant does not vacate the shop on or before 30.06.2023 and creates any obstruction, he shall be liable for contempt of order of this Court.

#9. With the aforesaid observations, this second appeal is dismissed and disposed off. No order as to costs. (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE