Mere Ownership Is No Passport to Eviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Cancels Eviction, Restores Possession to Occupant After Finding No Proof of Tenancy

“Possession Prevails Where Tenancy Fails”: In a landmark judgment Madhya Pradesh High Court decisively ruled that ownership of property alone is insufficient to evict a person from possession without proving the relationship of landlord and tenant. Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal allowed the second appeal and set aside the eviction decree passed by the first appellate court, restoring the trial court’s dismissal of the eviction suit. The Court held that the appellant's long-standing possession, supported by documentary evidence, could not be undone by mere ownership claims of the plaintiff.

The Court observed: “It is well-settled that the existence of landlord-tenant relationship must be proved by admissible evidence, and mere purchase through a sale deed does not create a tenancy. Ownership does not equate to automatic right of eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.”

Court Rejects Eviction Despite Execution, Affirms Right to Appeal Even After Dispossession

A notable aspect of the judgment was the Court’s firm rejection of the argument that the appeal had become infructuous since the eviction decree had already been executed. Upholding the appellant’s right to restoration under Section 144 CPC, the Court declared:

“The right of appeal is a substantive right which survives despite execution of the decree… mere dispossession does not extinguish legal remedies when the decree itself is under challenge.”

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal emphasized the consistent principle that execution during the pendency of appeal does not render the appeal academic, observing that,

“The statutory right to restitution under Section 144 CPC ensures that possession can be restored if the decree is later found to be unsustainable.”

First Appellate Court’s Flawed Reasoning Struck Down for Ignoring Trial Court’s Detailed Findings

Criticizing the first appellate court’s approach, the High Court held that it was legally impermissible to reverse the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment without properly addressing its findings. Referring to the Supreme Court’s precedent in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, the Court stated:

“The appellate court’s failure to deal with the trial court’s reasoning and its mechanical reliance on the sale deed and oral statements invalidates the eviction decree.”

Documentary Evidence of Long-Term Possession Prevails Over Oral Assertions of Tenancy

Justice Bansal meticulously evaluated the evidence on record, noting that the appellant had presented driving licences, voter IDs, electricity bills, and ration cards showing continuous possession since 1995—well before the plaintiff’s purchase in 2012. The Court held:

“The long-standing possession of the appellant supported by government documents cannot be displaced by bare oral testimony, especially from interested witnesses.”

The Court further held that: “Admissible documents reflecting continuous possession must outweigh mere assertions of oral tenancy, especially when no rent receipts, tenancy agreements, or written admissions exist.”

Ownership Alone Does Not Establish Landlord-Tenant Relationship Under Rent Control Law

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal, the High Court reaffirmed that:

“The burden of proving tenancy lies squarely on the plaintiff, and a sale deed, however valid, does not in itself create a landlord-tenant relationship.”

The judgment emphasized that under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, eviction suits without proof of tenancy are unsustainable. The Court observed:

“No relief of eviction can be granted where the foundational requirement of tenancy is not established. Title alone does not confer right to evict under rent control legislation.”

Eviction Decree Set Aside, Possession Rights Reinstated

In conclusion, the Court allowed the second appeal, restored the trial court’s dismissal of the eviction suit, and granted full relief to the appellant. Justice Bansal declared:

“The first appellate court’s decree is unsustainable both in fact and law. The trial court’s judgment rightly recognised the absence of landlord-tenant relationship and protected the appellant’s possession, which now stands reaffirmed.”

Date of Decision: 15 July 2025