Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnuprasad S/O Bhagwandasji Gehlod ... vs Rajendra Singh on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
1 FA-1186-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
FIRST APPEAL No. 1186 of 2025
VISHNUPRASAD S/O BHAGWANDASJI GEHLOD THROUGH LRS.
SANDEEP AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJENDRA SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Bhavishya Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.
2/State.
Heard on : 20.08.2025
Pronounced on : 17.09.2025
JUDGMENT
(1) The present appeal is preferred by the appellants under Section 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code")
being crestfallen by the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by learned Xth
Additional District Judge, District Indore in COS No. 36-A/2011, whereby
the suit filed by the respondent has been allowed and decreed.
(2) The facts leading to the present appeal in nut-shell are that the
respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellants under section 12(1)
(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (in
short "the Act"). It was pleaded by the respondent in the plaint that a house
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
2 FA-1186-2025
situated at 321/1, Palhar Nagar, Indore is under the ownership of the
respondent and the said house was constructed by him by obtaining loan
from the P.N.B. Housing Finance Company Limited. It was further pleaded
in the plaint that the said house was let out to the Appellants @ of Rs.
5,000/- per month and the tenancy is of oral tenancy and the same will start
from every first day of English calendar and end between 1st day to 10th day
of the Month. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the other expenses such
as electricity, water, and paint of house shall be borne by the Appellants and
as and when the respondent need the house, the appellants shall vacate the
said house. Since the appellant No.1 is the brother-in-law of the respondent
and appellant No. 2 is the real sister of the respondent, therefore, it was
agreed between them that the appellants will pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as
rent out of which Rs.4500/- per month be paid as installment of loan and
remaining Rs.500/- be paid to him but the appellants have never paid the rent
regularly and, therefore, rent amount of Rs.6,000/- is due on the appellants. It
was further stated that when the respondent is in the need of the suit house
for study of his daughter and medical treatment of his brother's wife who is
dependent on him, he demanded the vacant possession of the suit house, but
the appellants have denied the same and also not paid the rent. In this
situation, the respondent has given the legal notice and the appellants have
submitted reply to the legal notice and, thereafter, the present suit was filed
by the respondent.
(3) The appellants, being defendants filed a written statement stating
that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as there is no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
3 FA-1186-2025
relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and respondent
and the suit property is under the ownership and possession of the appellants.
It was further stated by the appellants that the appellant no.1 is working as
labour and making car seat cover and the appellant No. 2 is doing stitching
work and they want to purchase a house but when they tried to obtain loan it
came to their knowledge that in any condition they will not get the loan,
because, they are not having the required documents to obtain loan. It is
necessary to mention here that the sale deed is executed in the name of the
person who obtain the loan therefore, the appellants believing and trusting
respondent got executed the sale deed in the name of respondent and loan
was taken from the Punjab National Bank and the remaining amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- was given by the respondent as loan to the appellants and on
27.05.2005 the sale deed was executed.
(4) The appellants/defendants have denied all averments made in the
plaint by contending in their written statement that there is no relation
between appellants and respondent as tenant and owner. The disputed house
is of the ownership of appellants. Therefore, the suit filed for eviction
deserves and liable to be dismissed.
(5) On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the
following issues :-
1. या वाद के व व आिधप य के मकान नं; 321/1 प हर नगर इं दौर
कं डका 1 म व णत म ितमाह क दर से करायेदार है ?
2. या ितवाद गण पर 6500 उ मकान का कराया बकाया है ?
3. या वाद को उ मकान क अपनी पु ी ेता और भाई के बीमार प ी के
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
4 FA-1186-2025
िनवास हे तु स ाभावनापूवक आव यकता है ?
4. या वाद का इं दौर शहर म िनवास हे तु अ य वैक पक थान नह ं है ?
5. या ितवाद गण ारा वाद के मकान मािलक के व य को इं कार कया
गया ?
6. या ितवाद गण ारा उ मकान म नयूसस का रत कया जाता है ?
(6) During the course of trial, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Ex.
P/1 to Ex.P/10 were got marked on behalf of respondent/plaintiff. DW-1 to
DW-2 were examined and Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/66 was got marked on behalf of
appellants/defendants. The trial Court answered the issues No.1, 2, 3 and 5 &
6 are proved. Issue No. 4 is answered, but not proved. Resultantly, after
adducing evidence on record and the fact that the respondent/plaintiff has
bonafide need of suit premises for his daughter and the respondent is the
owner of the suit property. Hence, the suit has been allowed by the impugned
judgment and decree and directed the appellants to vacate the suit premises.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and decree, the
appellants have preferred this first appeal.
(7) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order
is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial
Court has erred in holding that the appellants are the tenants of the
respondent @ Rs.5,000/- per month in the house No. 321/1, Palhar Nagar,
District Indore. It is submitted that the burden to prove the relationship of
landlord and tenant is on the respondent, and respondent has also failed to
prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. In the suit, it was mentioned
that the respondent have the bonafide requirement of the suit property for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
5 FA-1186-2025
education of his daughter and medical treatment of his brother's wife, but the
said findings of the trial Court is completely contrary to the record. The
respondent is not the real owner of the suit property. He has also submitted
that when the situation of obtaining the loan was mentioned to the
respondent, the respondent has given proposal to the appellants that he will
obtain loan as he is having all the requisite documents for obtaining loan and
in the sale deed executed is in the name of the person who obtain the loan.
Therefore, the appellants believing and trusting respondent got executed the
sale deed in the name of respondent and loan was taken from the Punjab
National Bank and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given by the
respondent as loan to the appellants. He has further submitted that the trial
Court only on the basis of sale deed, has held that the respondent is the
owner of the property, however, the circumstances which explained the
execution of the sale deed has not been considered by the trial Court. On
these grounds, he has prayed that the present appeal be allowed by setting
aside the impugned order.
(8) To bolster his argument, he has placed reliance in the cases of
Premdas Vs. Laxmi Nakayan Pande, 1964 MPLJ 190 and Dhania Bai Vs.
Ramkhilawan, 1982 MPWN 472.
(9) In turn, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the
appeal and argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
learned trial Court is in accordance to law and present appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
(10) To support his contentions, he has relied upon Shiv Sarup Gupta
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
6 FA-1186-2025
Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta, MANU/SC/0432/1999, Sarla Ahuja Vs. United
India Insurance Company Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119, Prem Kumar Vs.
Kanhaiyalal, 2002 (2) MPLJ Dev Shankar Vs. Shashi decided in S.A. No.
1258/2017, Sushma Vs. Late Gulabchandra, 2011 (2) MPLJ, Santosh Kumar
Vs. Sooraj Prasad, 2014 (4) MPLJ.
(11) Having heard elaborate arguments advanced on behalf of parties,
I have perused the entire record.
(12) Before discussing the above aspects, as the appeal is under
Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, the scope of Section 96 of the CPC is to
be considered.
(13) While dealing with the scope of the first appeal, three judges
Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam
Tiwari (Dead) By LRs held as follows :-
".........appellate Court has jurisdiction to
reverse or affirm the findings of the trial
Court. First appeal is a valuable right of the
parties and unless restricted by law, the
whole case is therein open for rehearing both
on questions of fact and law. The judgment of
the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its
conscious application of mind, and record
findings supported by reasons, on all the
issues arising along with the contentions put
forth, and pressed by the parties for decision
of the appellate Court. The task of an
appellate Court affirming the findings of the
trial Court is an easier one. The appellate
Court agreeing with the view of the trial
Court need not restate the effect of the
evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the
trial Court; expression of general agreement
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
7 FA-1186-2025
with reasons given by the Court, decision of
which is under appeal, would ordinarily
suffice (See Girijanandini Devi & Ors. Vs.
Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC
1124). We would, however, like to sound a
note of caution. Expression of general
agreement with the findings recorded in the
judgment under appeal should not be a device
or camouflage adopted by the appellate Court
for shirking the duty cast on it......"
(14) In case of H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC
243 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts
as well as on law. In the first appeal parties
have the right to be heard both on questions
of law as also on facts and the first appellate
court is required to address itself to all issues
and decide the case by giving reasons.
Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present
case has not recorded any finding either on
facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate
court it was the duty of the High Court to
deal with all the issues and the evidence led
by the parties before recording the finding
regarding title. The order of the High Court is
cryptic and the same is without assigning any
reason."
(15) On the basis of these two judgments, the first appeal has to be
decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties and the points raised in
the appeal as stated (supra).
(16) Upon perusal of judgment relied upon by the appellants, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
8 FA-1186-2025
evident that in Premdas (supra), the issue is involved for ejectment of the
defendants from a house and for recovery of rent. Hence, the judgment relied
upon is of no avail to the appellants. The judgment relied upon by the
appellants in Dhania Bai (supra) is also of no avail to the
appellants/defendants.
(17) Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (In short "T.P.
Act") provides that
54. "Sale" defined.
"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for
a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made.--
Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable
property of the value of one hundred rupees and
upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other
intangible thing, can be made only by a registered
instrument.
In the case of tangible immovable property of a
value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may
be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery
of the property.
Delivery of tangible immovable property takes
place when the seller places the buyer, or such person
as he directs, in possession of the property.
Contract for sale.--
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
9 FA-1186-2025
A contract for the sale of immovable property is a
contract that a sale of such property shall take place on
terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or
charge on such property.
(17A) Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 is worth to be
referred as under :-
Documents of which registration is compulsory.
(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the
property to which they relate is situate in a district in
which, and if they have been executed on or after the
date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian
Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act,
1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act
came or comes into force, namely,
(a) instruments of gift of immovable property;
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or
operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish,
whether in present or in future, any right, title or
interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of
one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable
property;
(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge
the receipt or payment of any consideration on account
of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or
extinction of any such right, title or interest; and
(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or
for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly
rent;
(e) [non-testamentary instruments transferring or
assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award
when such decree or order or award purports or
operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
10 FA-1186-2025
whether in present or in future, any right, title or
interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of
one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable
property:] [Inserted by Act 21 of 1929, Section 10.]
Provided that the [State Government] [Substituted by
A.O.1950, for "Provincial Government" .] may, by
order published in the [Official Gazette] [Substituted by
A.O.1937, for "Local Official Gazette" .], exempt from
the operation of this sub-section any leases executed in
any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by
which do not exceed five years and the annual rents
reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.
[(1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer
for consideration, any immovable property for the
purpose of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, shall be registered if they have been
executed on or after the commencement of the
Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2001, and if such documents are not registered on
or after such commencement then, they shall have no
effect for the purposes of the said section 53-A.]
[Inserted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 3 (w.e.f.
24.9.2001).]
(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1)
applies to
(i) any composition deed; or
(ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock
company, notwithstanding that the assets of such
company consist in whole or in part of immovable
property; or
(iii) any debenture issued by any such company and not
creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing
any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property
except insofar as it entitles the holder to the security
afforded by a registered instrument whereby the
company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise
transferred the whole or part of its immovable property
or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
11 FA-1186-2025
benefit of the holders of such debentures; or
(iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture
issued by any such company; or
(v) [any document other than the documents specified in
sub-section (1-A)] [Substituted by Act 48 of 2001,
Section 3, for "any document" (w.e.f. 24.9.2001).] not
itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or
extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of
one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable
property, but merely creating a right to obtain another
document which will, when executed, create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or
interest; or
(vi) any decree or order of a Court [except a decree or
order expressed to be made on a compromise and
comprising immovable property other than that which is
the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding]
[Substituted by A.O.1937, for "and any award" .]; or
(vii) any grant of immovable property by the
[Government] [Substituted by A.O.1950, for "Crown"
.]; or
(viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue
Officer; or
(ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral
security granted under the Land Improvement Act,
1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or
(x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists
Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the
repayment of a loan made under that Act; or
[(x-a) any order made under the Charitable
Endowments Act, 1890, vesting any property in a
Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any
such Treasurer of any property; or] [Inserted by Act 39
of 1948, Section 2 (w.e.f. 3.9.1948).]
(xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed
acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of
the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment
of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does
not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or
(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of
any property sold by public auction by a Civil or
Revenue Officer.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
12 FA-1186-2025
[Explanation [Inserted by Act 2 of 1927, Section 2.].a
document purporting or operating to effect a contract
for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed
to require or ever to have required registration by reason
only of the fact that such document contains a recital of
the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or
any part of the purchase money.]
(3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the first
day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall
also be registered.
"[(1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer
for consideration, any immovable property for the
purpose of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, shall be registered if they have been
executed on or after the commencement of the
Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2001, and if such documents are not registered on
or after such commencement then, they shall have no
effect for the purposes of the said section 53-A.]
[Inserted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 3 (w.e.f.
24.9.2001).]"
(18) Section 15 of T.P. Act , can be summered as under:-
"If, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is
created for the benefit of a class of persons with regard
to some of whom such interest fails by reason of any of
the rules contained in sections 13 and 14, such interest
fails in regard to those persons only and not in regard to
the whole class."
(19) Admittedly, no registered agreement is on record and under
Section 17 of the Registration Act, written agreement is required to be
registered. Oral agreement was not admissible in evidence. An oral
agreement, could not be used to establish that the suit property was used by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
13 FA-1186-2025
the appellants having ownership thereon.
(20) Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity "the Act,
1872") (Section 59 of the Bharatiya Shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) (In short
"Adhiniyam, 2023"), defines 'Proof of documents by primary evidence ' thus :
"Documents must be proved by primary evidence
except in the cases hereinafter mentioned."
(21) It considers primary evidence to be of utmost importance and
gives it a higher status as compared to other evidence. Section 64 of the Act
mandates the presentation of primary evidence for proving the contents of
the document.
(22) Section 65 of the Act, 1872 (Section 60 of Adhiniyam, 2023) is
reproduced as below :
Secondary evidence may be given of the
existence, condition or contents of a document in the
following cases :
(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in
the possession or power of the person against whom the
document is sought to be proved, or of any person out
of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court,
or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when,
after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person
does not produce it;
(b)When the existence, condition or contents of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
14 FA-1186-2025
the original have been proved to be admitted in writing
by the person against whom it is proved or by his
representative in interest;
(23) Furthermore, Section 91 of the Act, 1872 (Section 94 of
Adhiniyam, 2023) is pertinent to mention as follows :-
Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of
property reduced to form of document.
"When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any
other disposition of property, have been reduced to the
form of a document, and in all cases in which any
matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a
document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the
terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of
property, or of such matter, except the document itself,
or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which
secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions
herein before contained."
(24) Likewise, Section 92 of the Act, 1872 (Section 95 of the
Adhiniyam, 1872) is referred as under :-
Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.
"When the terms of any such contract, grant or
other disposition of property, or any matter required by
law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been
proved according to the last section, no evidence of any
oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as
between the parties to any such instrument or their
representatives in interest, for the purpose of
contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
15 FA-1186-2025
its terms:
Proviso (1). -- Any fact may be proved which
would invalidate any document, or which would entitle
any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such
as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution,
want of capacity in any contracting party, 1[want or
failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
Proviso (2). -- The existence of any separate oral
agreement as to any matter on which a document is
silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may
be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso
applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of
formality of the document.
Proviso (3). -- The existence of any separate oral
agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the
attaching of any obligation under any such contract,
grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
Proviso (4). -- The existence of any distinct
subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any
such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be
proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or
disposition of property is by law required to be in
writing, or has been registered according to the law in
force for the time being as to the registration of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
16 FA-1186-2025
documents.
Proviso (5). Any usage or custom by which
incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are
usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be
proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident
would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the
express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6). -- Any fact may be proved which
shows in what manner the language of a document is
related to existing facts."
(25) This rule is based on the principle that a written document is the
most reliable record of an agreement. It applies to the parties involved and
their representatives and covers agreements required by law to be in writing.
In the case at hand, the appellants are claiming their ownership on the suit
property only on the basis of oral evidence, which cannot be applicable.
(26) Section 93 of the Act, 1872 (Section 96 of Adhiniyam, 2023) is to
be referred as mentioned below :-
"93. Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend
ambiguous document.
When the language used in a document is, on its face,
ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of
fact which would show its meaning or supply its
defects."
(27) Section 94 of the Act, 1872 (Section 97 of Adhiniaym, 2023) is
also condign to quote here :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
17 FA-1186-2025
"Exclusion of evidence against application of
document to existing facts.
When language used in a document is plain in
itself, and when it applies accurately to existing facts,
evidence may not be given to show that it was not
meant to apply to such facts."
(28) In the present case, the respondent has stated in his statement that
Rs.5,000/- was fixed as monthly rent of the suit property. On the other hand,
the appellants stated that Rs.5,000/- per month was being paid by them, out
of which Rs.4,500/- was being paid as installment of loan and remaining
amount of Rs.500/- in the account of respondent. Hence, if any document,
which requires authentication, should have clear language and here, no such
type of documents has been annexed or placed on record.
(29) Section 101 of the Act, 1872 (Section 104 of Adhiniyam, 2023) is
also worth to be referred as under :-
Burden of proof,
"Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any
legal right or liability dependent on the existence of
facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any
fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that
person."
(30) Section 102 of the Act, 1872 (Section 105 of Adhiniyam, 2023)
defines 'burden of proof' as under :-
"The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that
person who would fail if no evidence at all were given
on either side."
(31) Normally, the initial burden of proving the execution of a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
18 FA-1186-2025
document when it is denied must rest upon the person alleging its execution.
Here, in the present case the respondent has denied the facts with regard to
the loan. The person who would fail in the absence of any evidence bears the
responsibility to produce proof.
(32) In terms of the said provision, the burden of proving the fact rests
on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party
who denies it.
(33) Here, it is necessary to elaborate that the pleading is not evidence,
far less proof. Issues are raised on the basis of the pleadings. The
appellants/defendants having not admitted or acknowledged the fiduciary
relationship between the parties, indisputably, the relationship between the
parties itself would be an issue. In view of Section 101 & 102 of the
Evidence Act, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the
affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the
party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be
given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side.
(34) The facts as per the pleadings and evidence are that an oral
agreement was done between the parties with regard to tenancy of the suit
property. The respondent/plaintiff Vishnuprasad (PW-1) before the trial
Court has categorically stated in his statement that disputed property is in the
ownership of the respondent/plaintiff and as the appellants/defendants and
respondent/plaintiff are relatives, an oral agreement was established between
them in respect of rent. According to oral agreement, appellants/defendants
are tenant in a house, owned by the respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
19 FA-1186-2025
has also submitted a copy of sale deed (Ex.P/-1), receipt of changing the
name in Electricity Meter (Ex.P/6), Municipal Corporation, Indore property
tax receipt (Ex.-P/7) & PNB Housing Finance Loan sanction letter (Ex.P/8).
(35) In view of the facts referred (supra), the trial Court ought to have
considered whether the respondent/plaintiff has proved his title on the basis
of copy of sale deed (Ex.P/-1), receipt of changing the name in Electricity
Meter (Ex.P/6), Municipal Corporation, Indore property tax receipt (Ex.-P/7)
& PNB Housing Finance Loan sanction letter (Ex.P/8), which established
that the respondent/plaintiff constructed house by taking loan and he is owner
of the house in question. Hence, no rights flow in favour of the
appellants/defendants.
(36) So far as the question of need of suit property shown by the
respondent/plaintiff and another available accommodation is concerned, the
availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an
accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he
is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of
another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit
accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides
of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to
satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the
Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need
or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural.
Secondly, another principal ingredient of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of
Section 12, pertains to the bonafide residential requirement of the landlord
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
20 FA-1186-2025
for themselves or a family member, providing a valid ground for a landlord
to seek eviction of a tenant. The tenant must vacate if the landlord can prove
that the accommodation is needed for their own or their family's residence
and that they lack any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation
in the city or town.
(37) As to impact availability of vacating the accommodation for the
landlord, it must satisfy the test of suitability for satisfying the need of the
landlord.
(38) On this aspect, the operative paragraph of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja (supra), is poignant to quote
here :-
"..............When a landlord asserts that he requires his
building for his own occupation the Rent Controller
shall not proceed on the presumption that the
requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of
the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a
prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to
draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord
in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for
the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else
he can adjust himself without getting possession of the
tenanted premises. While deciding the question of
bonafides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite
unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the
landlord could have adjusted himself........"
(39) In the present case, it is well established that after taking into
account the aforesaid broad aspects, the respondent/plaintiff is in actual need
of the suit property. It cannot be said that the trial Court had taken into
account irrelevant factors in reaching the conclusion. Hence, the trial Court
has properly applied its mind in proving the issue relating to the need of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27143
21 FA-1186-2025
accommodation of the respondent/plaintiff.
(40) In the upshot of the aforesaid analysis of law and deliberation in
entirety, so also considering the documents/exhibits placed on record, this
Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the
Court below. Accordingly, the First Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
(41) Accordingly, impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.2021
passed by Xth Additional District Judge, District Indore in COS No.36-
A/2011 is hereby affirmed. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Cost of Civil Suit as well as the instant appeal will be borne by the
appellants/defendants. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(42) All pending I.As, if any, in the case are hereby dismissed.
(43) Let record of trial Court be sent back to the concerned Court
alongwith copy of this judgment.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Vindesh
