Pankaj Rastogi vs Pana Devi And Ors.

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 06-04-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 1 S.A. No.900 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT G WAL I O R BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA SECOND APPEAL No. 900 of 2005 PANKAJ RASTOGI Versus PANADEVI (DELETED) AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Kailash Narayan Gupta – Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ajay Singh Rathore – Advocate for appellant. Shri Vinod Bhargava – Advocate for respondents. _____________________________________________________________ Reserved on : 01.04.2026 Pronounced on : 06.04.2026 _____________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT 1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 26-2-2005 passed by XIIth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 4-A/2005 as well as Judgment and Decree dated 15-9-2004 passed by VIIIth Civil Judge Class I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 96-A/2001. 2. The appellant is the tenant who has suffered decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act on the ground of arrears of rent. 3. Since, the controversy revolves in a very narrow compass, therefore, it is not necessary to mention the facts of the case in detail. It is sufficient to Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 2 S.A. No.900 of 2005 mention that a civil suit was filed in respect of Shops no. 3 and 4, situated in Jalim Singh Ki Goth, DahiMandi, Laskhar, Gwalior on several grounds including on the ground of arrears of rent. All other grounds were not found proved except that the tenant is in arrears of rent. Therefore, this Court is only concerned with the question as to whether a decree for eviction has been rightly passed against the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent or not? 4. It was the case of the plaintiff that the tenant has paid rent upto 14-12- 1985 and thereafter, he did not pay rent accordingly, it was pleaded that tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 15-12-1985 till 14-4-1987 i.e., 16 months. The civil suit was filed on 14-5-1987. 5. The appellant filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that the tenant has paid Rs.4900/- by way of arrears of rent but the receipt was not given. Thus, the defendant denied that he is in arrears of rent 6. After framing issues & recording evidence, Trial Court granted a decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. 7. Being aggrieved by Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Court. 8. This appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Question of Law : “Whether the two courts below have erred in passing the decree for ejectment on the ground that Section 12(1)(a) when the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by the tenant with landlord which was to be refunded at the time of vacating the suit premises.” 9. Challenging the Judgments and Decrees passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by Counsel for the appellant that in view of Judgments passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 3 S.A. No.900 of 2005 Supreme Court in the case of G. Reghunathan Vs. K.V. Varghese reported in AIR 2005 SC 3680, Modern Hotel, Gudur represented by M.N. Narayanan Vs. K. Radhakrishnaiah and others reported in (1989) 2 SCC 686 and K. Narasimha Rao Vs. T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed reported in (1996) 3 SCC 45, the earnest money of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be adjusted & thus the tenant/appellant was not in arrears of rent. 10. Per contra, it is submitted by Counsel for appellant, that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was refundable on vacating the suit premises is not liable to be adjusted against the outstanding arrears and relied upon Judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta Vs. Rameshwar Agarwala and others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 443. It is further submitted that the appellants have also caused many defaults in payment of rent during appeal before District Court as well as in the present appeal and he is still in arrears of rent. 11. The submission made by Counsel for respondents, that the appellant has committed multiple defaults in payment of rent during the pendency of civil appeal as well as in the present appeal was admitted by the Counsel for the appellant and it was also accepted that the appellants are still in arrears of rent. However, it was submitted that since, the appellant was not in arrears of rent on the date of filing of suit, therefore, he was not required to follow the mandate of Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, by depositing th the rent by 15 of every succeeding month. 12. Considered the submissions made by Counsel for the parties. 13. So far as the Judgments passed in the case of Modern Hotel (Supra) and K. Narasimha Rao (Supra) are concerned, they are distinguishable in view of different provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act and Tamilnadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 4 S.A. No.900 of 2005 In the case of Modern Hotel (Supra), Section of 7 Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act provides that “where the fair rent of a building has not been so fixed –(a) the landlord shall not after the commencement of this Act claim, receive or stipulate for the payment of any premium or other like sum in addition to the agreed rent: provided that the landlord may receive or stipulate for the payment of an amount not exceeding one months rent by way of advance; (b) save as provided in clause (a), any sum paid in excess of the agreed rent whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in consideration of the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy of the building after such commencement, shall be refunded by the landlord to the person by whom it was paid or, at the option of such, shall be otherwise adjusted by the landlord. Similar is the provision in Tamilnadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. 14. The Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Section 6 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act which reads as under : 6. Unlawful charges not to be claimed or received. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall claim or receive any rent in excess of the standard rent, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. (2) No person shall, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of any accommodation :- (a) Claim or receive the payment of any sum as premium or pugree or claim or receive any consideration whatsoever, in cash or in kind, in addition to the rent; or (b) Except with the previous permission of the Rent Controlling Authority, claim or receive the payment of any sum exceeding one month's rent of such accommodation as rent in advance. (3) It shall not be lawful for the tenant or any other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the tenant or a sub-tenant to claim or receive any payment in consideration of the relinquishment, transfer or assignment of his tenancy or sub-tenancy, as the case may be, of any accommodation. Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 5 S.A. No.900 of 2005 (4) Nothing in this Section shall apply to any payment made under an agreement by any person to a landlord for the purpose of financing the construction of the whole or part of any accommodation on the land belonging to, or taking on lease, by the landlord, if one of the conditions of the agreement is that the landlord is to let to that person the whole or part of the accommodation when completed for the use of that person or any member of his family : Provided that such payment shall not exceed the amount of agreed rent for a period of five years of the whole or part of the accommodation to be let to such person. (5) Any payment made under sub-section (4) shall be deemed to be the payment of rent in advance for such period from the commencement of the tenancy to which it is relatable. 15. Although as per Section 6(2)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, no person shall claim or receive the payment of any sum as premium or pugree or claim or receive the payment of any sum exceeding one month’s rent of such accommodation as rent in advance but unlike Section 6(4) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, there is no provision that such premium or pugree shall be adjustable against the arrears of rent. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhoja (Supra) has held as under : 14. The Act does not contain any provision for automatic adjustment of excess rent. As already noticed, neither in reply to the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act nor in the written statement or through any other writing was the adjustment of excess rent towards the arrears claimed by the tenant from the landlord. There was also no agreement between the parties at any point of time for adjustment of the excess rent illegally paid towards the rent falling due subsequently. 15. In Mohd. Salimuddin v. MisriLal the facts were that the tenant had advanced a sum of Rs 2000 to the landlord in order to secure the tenancy by an agreement which specifically provided that the loan amount could be adjusted against the rent which accrued subsequently. The landlord filed a suit against the tenant for eviction Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 6 S.A. No.900 of 2005 on the ground of arrears of rent. The lower appellate court dismissed the suit holding that the tenant was not in arrears of rent since the amount advanced by the tenant as loan as per the agreement could be adjusted against the rent and the said amount was sufficient to cover the landlord’s claim of arrears. The High Court in the second appeal filed by the landlord however set aside the judgment of the first appellate court holding that the loan advanced by the tenant being in violation of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act could not be adjusted and that the tenant was in arrears of rent and therefore liable to be evicted. On an appeal by special leave this Court noticed the following admitted facts: (SCC p. 380, para 2) “(1) The tenant had advanced a sum of Rs 2000 under an agreement which inter alia contained a stipulation that the loan amount was to be adjusted against the rent which accrued. (2) The amount so advanced by the tenant was sufficient to cover the landlord’s claim of arrears. (3) If the loan amount was accordingly adjusted towards the rent which accrued, the tenant was not in arrears of rent. 16. This Court did not agree with the High Court that since the loan advanced by the tenant was in violation of the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Rent Act, the tenant was not entitled to claim adjustment of the loan amount against rent which had accrued subsequently. Allowing the appeal the Court rejected the application of doctrine of pari delicto to the facts of the case by observing: (SCC p. 381, para 4) “… The doctrine of pari delicto is not designed to reward the ‘wrongdoer’, or to penalize the ‘wronged’, by denying to the victim of exploitation access to justice. The doctrine is attracted only when none of the parties is a victim of such exploitation and both parties have voluntarily and by their free will joined hands to flout the law for their mutual gain. Such being the position the said doctrine embodying the rule that a party to a transaction prohibited by law cannot enforce his claim in a court of law is not attracted in a situation like the present.” Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the High Court was set aside and that of the first appellate court restored. This judgment, has no application to the facts of the present case as leaving aside everything else, the agreement by which the sum of Rs 2000 had been advanced, by the tenant to the landlord to secure Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 7 S.A. No.900 of 2005 the tenancy, had specifically provided that the loan amount could be adjusted against the rent which may accrue subsequently . It would have been perpetuating immorality if the landlord after taking loan of Rs 2000 with the clear stipulation regarding its adjustment against arrears falling due subsequently was to rely on the illegal nature of the transaction and deny adjustment. There is not even a demand, much less any agreement, between the parties in the present case for adjustment of the excess amount of rent illegally paid towards the rent accruing subsequently. 17. In Sarwan Kumar OnkarNath v. Subhas Kumar Agarwalla the facts were as follows: The appellant was a lessee of the building belonging to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs 70. At the time of taking the premises on rent, he paid in advance two months’ rent i.e. Rs 140. The appellant paid rent regularly thereafter but did not pay rent for the months of September and October 1972. Taking advantage of the non-payment of the rent in respect of the said two months, the respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction against the appellant-tenant contending that the appellant being a defaulter in payment of rent for two months had become liable to be evicted from the premises in question under clause ( d ) of Section 11(1) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. The tenant pleaded inter alia in his written statement that from the time of inception of the tenancy, he had paid the respondent a sum of Rs 140 as advance rent with an understanding that the amount of advance could be set off against the rent whenever necessary or required and that since under Section 3 of the Act it was not lawful for the landlord to claim or receive, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of the tenancy of any building, any amount by way of advance or premium the appellant could not be considered to be a defaulter in payment of rent. Agreeing with the plea of the tenant, the trial court dismissed the suit and the appeal filed by the landlord before the Additional Subordinate Judge also failed. The landlord filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court on facts found that the tenant had failed to pay the rent for the months of September and October 1972. It accepted the plea of the tenant that he had paid the sum of Rs 140 as rent in advance but set aside the concurrent judgments of the courts below on the ground that since the tenant had neither orally nor in writing Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 8 S.A. No.900 of 2005 informed the landlord that he was exercising the option, under the agreement, to adjust the amount paid in advance towards the rent due for the months of September and October 1972 he could not get the benefit of that amount paid to save himself from eviction. This Court allowed the appeal and held that the tenant was, in view of the advance paid and the agreement between the parties , not in arrears of rent and setting aside the judgment of the High Court restored that of the trial court which had been affirmed by the first appellate court. 18. This Court took notice of the fact that though the receipt under which the advance rent of Rs 140 had been paid did not state that the amount received “was liable to be adjusted towards the arrear of rent only on the appellant informing the respondent orally or in writing that such adjustment is to be made” but it construed the plea set out in the written statement to adjust the advance towards the rent due as amounting to an assertion as contemplated by the agreement and therefore it was held that the tenant could not be treated as a defaulter. Sarwan Kumar case also is not an authority for the proposition of “automatic adjustment” as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant because the construction placed by this Court on the written statement in Sarwan Kumar case was to the effect that the tenant had sought adjustment of the advance paid against the rent due for two months. That judgment also, therefore, does not advance the case of the appellant. 19. On the other hand, the opinion expressed by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Gulab Chand Prasad v. Budhwanti which has received the seal of approval of this Court in Budhwanti v. Gulab Chand Prasad fully supports the case of the landlord. The precise question which was considered by the Patna High Court was: ”Whether the excess rent paid by the tenant to his landlord, consequent upon a mutual (though illegal) enhancement of rent would be automatically adjusted against all subsequent defaults in payment of monthly rent for purposes of Sections 4, 5 and 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947?” 20. After a detailed discussion and reference to a catena of authorities, the answer to the above question was rendered in the negative and it was held that the excess rent paid by the tenant in pursuance of mutually agreed illegal enhancement thereof by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 9 S.A. No.900 of 2005 parties does not get automatically adjusted against the subsequent defaults in the payment of the monthly rent under the Act and even under the general law such an automatic adjustment is not countenanced. 16. In reply, Ex. D.6, to the notice, Ex. P.4, it was stated by the appellant/tenant that Rs. 10,000/- are with the landlord which are liable to be refunded at the time of vacating shops, but did not ask for adjustment of the said amount against the arrears of rent. On the contrary, it was contended that landlord wants to enhance the rent therefore, he has refused to accept the rent agreed upon between the parties and only after intervention by the members of the Society, the landlord has received Rs. 4,900 towards arrears of rent but has not given the receipt. It was also claimed that the landlord is already charging more than the standard rent and the tenant would be forced to approach the RCA for fixation of standard rent. However, admittedly the appellant/tenant never approached the RCA for fixation of standard rent. 17. In the written statement, it was claimed by the appellant/tenant that at the time of creation/grant of tenancy, it was agreed upon that the advance amount shall be adjustable against arrears of rent, but also claimed that w.e.f. 14-12-1985, the landlord had refused to accept notice and accordingly with the intervention of members of the society, the appellant paid the entire arrears of rent i.e., 4, 900/-, but receipt was not given. Thus, the appellant never admitted in his written statement that he was ever in arrears of rent and therefore, did not pray for adjustment of advance amount against the arrears of rent. Although in para 14 of his special plea, it was contended that at the time of grant of tenancy, it was agreed that the advance amount shall be adjustable against the arrears of rent, but this contention is contrary to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 10 S.A. No.900 of 2005 tenancy agreement, Ex. P.1. It was mentioned in the tenancy agreement, Ex. P.1, that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be refundable on vacating the premises but there is no condition, that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- can also be adjusted against the arrears of rent. Section 92 of Evidence Act prohibits any oral evidence for contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms. 18. Thus, it is held that neither in the reply to the show cause notice, Ex. P.6, nor in the written statement, the appellant ever sought adjustment of Rs. 10,000/- against the arrears of rent. On the contrary, the appellant had pleaded that he has already paid Rs. 4,900/- by way of arrears of rent for which receipt was not given by the appellant. 19. Under these circumstances, it is held that in absence of any provision for automatic adjustment of pugree or premium and in absence of any prayer for adjustment of Rs. 10,000/- against the arrears of rent either in reply to notice, Ex. P.6 or in the written statement, it is held that the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the appellant/tenant is not liable to be automatically adjustable. 20. The Supreme Court in the case of G. Reghunathan (Supra) has held that although provisions of Section 8 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 have been declared ultra vires by Kerala High Court, but in view of the fact that tenant had paid Rs. 85,000/- as security, therefore, two months time was granted to deposit the rent in arrears till the date of pronouncement of judgment. However, in the present case, no such liberty can be granted to the appellant/tenant for the reason, that the tenant/appellant has admitted multiple defaults in depositing the rent during the pendency of civil appeal as well as this appeal. 21. I.A. No. 846/2026 has been filed by the respondent for taking Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 11 S.A. No.900 of 2005 documents on record. Along with this application, the respondent has filed the copy of statement of deposit of rent produced by the appellant himself before the Executing Court. The appellant has not disputed the said statement and also admitted that the appellant has committed multiple defaults and did not deposit the rent as required under Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 22. Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act reads as under : 13. When tenant can get benefit of protection against eviction. - [(1) On a suit or any other proceeding being instituted by a landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12 or in any appeal or any other proceeding by a tenant against any decree or order for his eviction, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of summons or notice of appeal or of any other proceeding, or within one month of institution of appeal or any other proceeding by the tenant, as the case may be, or within such further time as the Court may on an application made to it allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made ; and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate till the decision of the suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be. 23. From plain reading of Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, it is clear that this Section is in two parts i.e., (i) after receiving the writ of summons or notice of appeal or of any other proceedings , or within one month of institution of appeal or any other proceeding by the tenant, as the case may be, or within such further time as the Court may on an application made to it allow in this behalf deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid for the period for which the tenant may have Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 12 S.A. No.900 of 2005 made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made; and (ii) shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate till the decision of the suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be. 24. Thus, it is clear that in case if the arrears of rent are not deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of writ of summons or notice or appeal or within one month from the institution of appeal by the tenant, then the time can be extended by the Court on an application th filed by the tenant, but so far as condition of depositing the rent by 15 of every succeeding month till the decision of the suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be is concerned, there is no provision of extension of time. 25. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. Goverdhan Bhai, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 533 as under : 11. The learned counsel for the respondent tenants vehemently argued that the respondents who are the legal representatives of the original tenant were not aware of the default. It is not possible to accept this contention since they were clearly aware of the fact that they were living in tenanted premises and were bound to pay rent. In any case we find that even if the impleadment of legal representatives on 6-7-2009 there are defaults for a period of two years thereafter. 12. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the contention that the respondents had paid rent regularly. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the respondents are willing to pay arrears of rent now before this Court and this Court may condone such delay. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on Section 13(5) of the Act which reads as follows: “ 13. (5) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub- section (1) or sub-section (2), no decree or order shall be made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 13 S.A. No.900 of 2005 the ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant, but the Court may allow such cost as it may deem fit to the landlord.” 13. We are of the view that on a plain reading, this provision protects a tenant from eviction if a tenant makes deposit/payment as required by Section 13(1) or 13(2) of the Act. In other words, if the tenant has complied with the provisions of Sections 13(1) and 13(2) in the matter of making payment, he is protected from eviction. It must be remembered that the provisions of Section 13 of the Act shied a tenant from eviction if the tenant regularly pay rent after the suit is filed. 14. Accordingly, it provides a locus poenitentiae to the tenant. Section 13(5) of the Act reiterates the protection by stating that if the tenant makes payment post-suit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act, he shall not be liable for eviction. This section does not confer the power on the court to condone the defaults in payment of rent after the suit is filed. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept this contention. 1 In the circumstances, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. 15. The respondents are directed to be evicted from the scheduled premises. They shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within one month. (Underline supplied) 26. Thus, it is clear that default committed by tenant after the suit is filed cannot be condoned by the Court especially by the Appellate Court. 27. So far as the contention of Counsel for appellant, that unless and until, it is finally held that the tenant was in arrears of rent on the date on institution of suit, till then the tenant is not required to deposit the rent during the th pendency of suit or appeal by 15 of every succeeding month is concerned, the same is misconceived. As per provision of Section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, every tenant is required to deposit the monthly th rent by 15 of every succeeding month during the pendency of suit or appeal. th Condition of deposit of month rent by 15 of every succeeding month is Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11198 14 S.A. No.900 of 2005 applicable even in those cases, where the eviction has not been sought on the ground of arrears of rent. 28. No other argument is advanced by the Counsel for the parties. 29. Thus, the Substantial Question of Law is answered in Negative and against the appellant/tenant. 30. Ex consequenti, the Judgment and Decree dated 26-2-2005 passed by XIIth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 4-A/2005 as well as Judgment and Decree dated 15-9-2004 passed by VIIIth Civil Judge Class I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 96-A/2001 are hereby affirmed. 31. The appellant is directed to vacate the suit shops No. 3 and 4. In case if execution proceedings are initiated, then in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal (D) through his Legal Representatives Vs. V. Rajamani and another etc. decided on 6-3-2025 in C.A. No. 3640-3642/2025 , the Executing Court shall positively conclude the Execution proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of its institution. 32. Appeal fails and is hereby Dismissed. (G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Aman Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 06-04-2026 06:33:50 PM</div>