Landlord Can Seek Eviction Based On Title By Amending Plaint If Tenant Denies Relationship And Sets Up Adverse Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"It is thus clear that the present is not a case of eviction based on landlord-tenant relationship simplicitor but before the trial Court itself relief of possession based on title was sought by paying appropriate court fees for the same." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a plaintiff in an eviction suit can amend the plaint to seek possession based on title when the defendant denies the landlord-tenant relationship and sets up a plea of adverse possession.

A bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi observed that judgments barring title inquiries under rent control legislation apply strictly to suits of a simplicitor landlord-tenant nature and do not bar alternative relief introduced through proper pleadings and court fees.

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the respondents seeking eviction, arrears of rent, and mesne profit regarding a house in Mhow, District Indore, claiming the property was let out on oral tenancy to the defendants' predecessor. The defendants contested the suit by denying the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming instead that their predecessor had occupied a vacant plot in 1969 and perfected title by adverse possession.

The primary question before the court was whether a suit for eviction filed under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, can culminate in a decree for possession based on title when the landlord-tenant relationship is not established. The court was also called upon to determine whether judgments restricting title inquiries in rent litigation apply when pleadings are formally amended to claim relief based on title.

Plaintiffs Exercised Right To Amend Plaint

The high court noted that upon the defendants denying the tenancy and asserting adverse possession, the plaintiffs promptly filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The trial court allowed the amendment, permitting the plaintiffs to assert their title and pay ad valorem court fees for delivery of possession. The defendants carried out consequential amendments to their written statement but never challenged the amendment order.

Distinction From Precedents Cited By Appellants

The appellants heavily relied on Supreme Court rulings in Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal, Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad, and Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera to argue that courts exercising jurisdiction under special rent statutes cannot grant decrees based on title. Justice Dwivedi distinguished these precedents, pointing out that in those cases, the plaintiffs had failed to amend their plaints and persisted with landlord-tenant pleadings simplicitor without seeking alternative relief based on title.

Pleadings And Evidence Established Plaintiffs' Title

"The title of the plaintiffs was not only pleaded but duly proved by leading evidence and also in view of the express admission by the appellants/defendants." The bench observed that the defendants themselves admitted in their written statement and oral depositions that the plaintiffs' predecessors were the original owners of the land. Furthermore, the trial court had framed specific issues on title, and both lower courts concurrently found the plaintiffs to be the lawful owners.

Complete Absence Of Adverse Possession Proof

The high court emphasized that the defendants failed to establish the foundational elements of adverse possession. The defendants' witnesses admitted in cross-examination that they did not even know the true owners, negating the essential requirement of a hostile possession asserted openly with the knowledge of the true owner. Both lower courts rightly discarded the plea of prescription.

No Substantial Question Of Law Found

The bench concluded that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the plaintiffs' title and the failure of the defendants' adverse possession plea suffered from no perversity. Finding no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, the high court dismissed the challenge, affirming the concurrent decrees of eviction and possession in favor of the respondents.

Date of Decision: 06 August 2026