Tenant's Plea of Adverse Possession Is Itself an Admission of Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Once adverse possession is claimed, ownership of the landlord stands admitted – the tenant cannot blow hot and cold” – Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Regular Second Appeal filed by tenants who had been restrained from carrying out construction in a rented shop without the landlord's consent. The appeal was rejected with strong observations affirming the plaintiff’s ownership and landlordship, which had been established both by documentary evidence—a registered sale deed dated 1998—and by the defendants' own admission through a plea of adverse possession. Justice Nidhi Gupta held that the defendants’ res judicata argument, based on prior rent proceedings, was legally and factually unsustainable.

“Res judicata cannot defeat a suit where title is proved by registered deed and admitted by the defendants themselves”

The case centered around the plaintiff's attempt to prevent the tenants from making unauthorized constructions on a shop property he purchased through a registered sale deed in 1998. The plaintiff had pleaded that the shop was in a severely dilapidated state and that the tenants had begun reconstruction without obtaining his consent. The civil suit filed in July 2016 resulted in concurrent decrees in the plaintiff’s favour by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot (07.02.2020) and the District Judge (15.03.2023). The second appeal before the High Court challenged these decrees on the sole ground that the matter was already settled in previous rent litigation.

"Adverse possession cannot be claimed without first accepting ownership of another"

The defendants/appellants had argued that earlier rent proceedings had concluded against the plaintiff, and therefore, his status as landlord and owner could not now be reasserted in a civil suit. In those proceedings, a Rent Controller’s order dated 23.07.2007 and a Rent Appeal order dated 18.01.2012 had reportedly concluded that the plaintiff was not the landlord or owner of the suit shop.

However, the High Court unequivocally rejected this defence. Justice Nidhi Gupta held:

“Learned Courts below have given concurrent findings that plaintiff is proved to be owner as well as landlord of the shop in dispute by way of registered Sale Deed Ex.P2… Appellants were unable to prove otherwise.”

More damning for the appellants was their own affidavit on record. Defendant No. 1, Ravinder Sharma, had filed an affidavit (Ex.DW1/A, Para 4) claiming that his rights had matured into ownership by way of adverse possession. The Court sharply observed:

“This in itself shows that defendants have admitted ownership of the plaintiff over the suit shop.”

In other words, the claim of adverse possession, which necessarily presupposes someone else’s ownership, functioned as a judicial admission. This pivotal fact severely undermined the appellants’ attempt to deny the landlord’s title based on prior litigation.

“Unauthorized construction without consent of landlord, even if for repairs, cannot be permitted”

The Court also found that the tenants had indeed raised construction without the landlord's consent, as they themselves admitted spending over ₹1 lakh on what they termed "necessary repairs." This act, without any prior consent from the plaintiff, justified the trial court’s grant of permanent injunction. Justice Gupta held:

“Admittedly, no consent of the plaintiff was obtained prior to raising said construction. Thus, allegation of the plaintiff that there is a threat that defendants had made fresh construction, is also found to be correct.”

The tenants also conceded that they were in occupation of the premises only as tenants, further reinforcing the plaintiff’s claim.

"Judgment in Md. Nooman v. Md. Jabed Alam is distinguishable; res judicata cannot override clear admissions and registered title"

Rejecting the tenants’ reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Md. Nooman v. Md. Jabed Alam, the High Court ruled that it was factually distinguishable. While Md. Nooman involved questions settled in earlier proceedings, the present case was different because title had been clearly proven and consciously admitted.

The High Court, therefore, dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate court:

“No ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.”

This ruling decisively clarifies that civil injunctions are maintainable and enforceable where ownership is proven through registered title and supported by party admissions. The judgment reinforces a key principle of property and landlord-tenant law: a tenant who invokes adverse possession implicitly accepts the title of the very person he seeks to dispossess. Moreover, it reaffirms that res judicata does not apply where the foundational legal relationship—ownership—is both proven and admitted in subsequent proceedings.

Justice Nidhi Gupta's judgment sends a strong message that tenants cannot use past litigation as a shield to carry out unlawful constructions and that registered ownership documents cannot be overridden by prior rent proceedings where no title adjudication has been made.

“The law does not permit dual standards—one cannot claim tenancy in one breath and adverse possession in another”

Date of Decision: 16 October 2025