[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Bansal vs Ganeshilal Bansal on 29 January, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4269
1 SA-3156-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2026
SECOND APPEAL No. 3156 of 2025
RAJENDRA KUMAR BANSAL AND ANOTHER
Versus
GANESHILAL BANSAL
Appearance:
Shri Harish Dixit - Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri S.K. Khare - Advocate for
appellants.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against
the judgment and decree dated 29/09/2025 passed by 12th District Judge,
Gwalior, in R.C.A. No. 367/2024 as well as judgment and decree dated
24/10/2024 passed by 14th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior, in
R.C.S.A. No. 2600005/2015.
2. Appellants are tenants who have lost their case from both the Courts
below.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
respondent/plaintiff Ganeshilal Bansal filed a suit for eviction pleading inter
alia that he is the owner and in possession of a double-storey building. The
space marked in green color with open space was given by plaintiff to
defendant No. 1 in the year 1988 on tenancy. Defendant No. 1 is the nephew
of plaintiff and since he was working in the firm of plaintiff, therefore, part
of the building marked as green color in the plaint map was given to him for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4269
2 SA-3156-2025
residential purposes. Thereafter, looking to the personal requirement of
defendant No. 1, upper portion of the property was also let out to him in the
year 2002. The ground floor, which was earlier let out to defendant No. 1,
was on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-, whereas first floor of the building was
let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-, exclusive of water and electricity
charges. It was further pleaded that remaining portion of the property, which
is marked with red color, is also double-storey and was in possession of the
plaintiff right from very beginning. In the year 2013, a case was registered by
the electricity department against defendant No. 1, therefore, plaintiff came
to know that defendant No. 1 is committing theft of electricity, and that was
the beginning of sour relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1.
Later on, plaintiff removed defendant No. 1 from service, and under an
apprehension that plaintiff may dispossess defendant No. 1, defendant No. 1
lodged a false report in Police Station Morar in the month of February, 2013
alleging that the entire property has been purchased by him. Accordingly, a
case under Sections 107, 116 of Cr.P.C. was registered, and plaintiff and his
sons were directed to remain present before the S.D.M., Morar. On
15/08/2013, plaintiff also received an information that defendant No. 1, after
breaking open the lock, has also taken forcible possession of the part of the
property, which was marked with red color, and has started a school in the
name of Glossy Star Public School, whereas the property marked with red
color was never let out by plaintiff to defendant No. 1. Plaintiff made
complaints to the police station and educational officers, but no action was
taken. Accordingly, a registered notice dated 30/08/2013 was sent to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4269
3 SA-3156-2025
defendant No. 1 and rent was demanded, but defendant No. 1 sent his reply
falsely claiming himself to be the owner of the property, and accordingly, it
was prayed that plaintiff is entitled for a decree under Section 12(1)(c) of the
M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It was also pleaded that in the month of
January 2013 as well as in the month of March 2013, defendant No. 1 has
also forcibly taken possession of the part which was never let out to him, and
accordingly, plaintiff is also liable to be evicted under Sections 12(1)(b) and
12(1)(o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Accordingly, the suit was
filed for eviction of defendant No. 1 under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b), 12(1)
(c) and 12(1)(o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act as well as for
recovery of arrears of rent from July 2013 to August 2014 at the rate of Rs.
3,000/- per month till actual possession is handed over. Mesne profit was also
sought in respect of the property marked with red color at the rate of Rs.
5,000/- per month. It is not out of place to mention here that initially the suit
was filed by respondent Ganeshilal against defendant No. 1 Rajendra Kumar
Bansal, but later on, by order dated 29/01/2016, defendant No. 2 was also
impleaded as a party. An application was filed by plaintiff that counsel for
defendant No. 1 - Rajendra Kumar Bansal has already expressed his "no
instructions" and thereafter, the notice which was sent to defendant No. 1
was received back with the report that defendant Rajendra Bansal is missing,
and accordingly, application was filed for impleading defendant No. 2, as she
is residing in the suit premises. Accordingly, by order dated 29/01/2016, the
said application was allowed and defendant No. 2 was impleaded as
defendant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4269
4 SA-3156-2025
4. Defendant No. 1/appellant No. 1 filed his written statement and
claimed that on 01/01/2005, defendant No. 2, who is the wife of defendant
No. 1, had agreed to purchase the entire property for a consideration amount
of Rs. 9,00,000/- and possession was also received, and plaintiff had also
assured that very soon he would execute the sale deed, but the sale deed has
not been executed, and accordingly, wife of defendant No. 1 had made
various complaints to various authorities, and accordingly, it was prayed that
the suit filed by plaintiff against defendant No. 1 may be dismissed.
5. Similarly, defendant No. 2 also filed a separate written statement
and claimed that earlier plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction against
defendant No. 1 by projecting him to be the tenant, but during the pendency
of suit, defendant No. 1 went missing from 22/09/2015. Information in that
regard has also been given. Even the counsel for defendant No. 1 had
expressed his "no instructions" on 08/10/2015. Notice issued by the Court
has not been served on defendant No. 1, and in absence of defendant No. 1,
suit is liable to be dismissed. Entire consideration amount has already been
paid by defendant No. 2 to plaintiff and no notice was given to defendant
No. 2 in accordance with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and thus, it
was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
6. Defendant No. 1 later on also appeared in the trial. However,
defendants were proceeded ex parte on 05/05/2022, and accordingly, an ex
parte judgment and decree was passed on 20/07/2022. Thereafter, an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed, which was allowed on
payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-, and accordingly, ex parte judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4269
5 SA-3156-2025
decree dated 20/07/2022 was set aside. Thereafter, evidence of Rajendra
Bansal (D.W.1) and Harveer Singh (D.W.2) was recorded and the Trial
Court, once again, by judgment and decree dated 24/10/2024, passed in
R.C.S.A. No. 2600005/2015, granted a decree of eviction against
appellants/defendants by holding that plaintiff has proved that defendants are
tenants of the suit premises and they have not paid rent from the month of
January 2013, and they also did not pay the rent within the stipulated period
from the date of receipt of the notice, and defendants/appellants have also
forcibly taken possession of the part of the property which is shown in red
color, and in spite of service of notice, said encroached part has also not been
vacated and plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per
month with effect from July 2013 and it was also held that
defendants/appellants have failed to prove that defendant No. 2 has
purchased the property in dispute from plaintiff for a consideration amount
of Rs. 9,00,000/-.
7. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,
appellants preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by 12th District
Judge, Gwalior, by its judgment and decree dated 29/09/2025 passed in
R.C.A. No. 367/2024.
8. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below,
it is submitted by counsel for appellants that plaintiff has failed to prove the
landlord-tenant relationship. It is further submitted that defendant No. 1 was
never an employee of the firm of plaintiff. It is further submitted that
plaintiff had already sold the suit premises to defendant No. 2 for an amount
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4269
6 SA-3156-2025
of Rs. 9,00,000/-, and proposed the following substantial questions of law:
"(a) Whether, in a suit under Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation
Control Act, the courts below misdirected themselves in law by
treating the defendants' failure to prove a valid registered sale deed as
sufficient to hold that the landlord-tenant relationship stood proved,
without first requiring the plaintiff to independently discharge his
initial burden of proving the existence and subsistence of tenancy by
cogent evidence, thereby misapplying Sections 101-103 of the
Evidence Act.
(b) Whether, on the admitted factual matrix of alleged full payment of
consideration and settlement of accounts between the parties, the
courts below have committed an error of law in failing to consider and
apply Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, particularly the
doctrines of surrender and implied determination of lease, and in
proceeding on the erroneous assumption that, in the absence of a
registered sale deed, the tenancy must necessarily continue unchanged.
(c) Whether the courts below have erred in law in wholly discarding
documents Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2 on the sole ground that they are
unregistered and do not operate as conveyances of title, without
examining their admissibility and effect for collateral purposes,
namely to prove substantial payment by the defendants, full settlement
of rent and interest accounts, and a change in the nature of possession,
contrary to the settled legal position on the use of unregistered
documents for collateral matters.
(d) Whether the courts below have erred in law in holding the
defendants to be "tenants" within the meaning of the M.P.
Accommodation Control Act for the entire period in question, without
examining whether, after the alleged agreement and payments
evidenced by Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2, the jural relationship had in law
altered from that of landlord--tenant to that of agreement-holder or
purchaser in possession, and consequently in invoking Section 12 of
the Act in circumstances where the defendants may no longer have
been tenants.
(e) Whether findings of both the courts below on the issue of passing
of consideration by defendants to plaintiff are perverse?
(f) Whether the courts below have misapplied Section 114(g) of the
Evidence Act by drawing a decisive adverse inference from the non-
examination of defendant No.2, and by treating such inference as a
substitute for proper evaluation of the evidence actually on record
(including the testimony of defendant No.1 and Ex. D-1, Ex. D-2 and
related documents), thereby discarding the defence of purchase on an
erroneous legal premise.
(g) Whether, in a proceeding governed by Section 12 of the M.-P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4269
7 SA-3156-2025
Accommodation Control Act, the courts below had the jurisdiction in
law to decree recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of
that portion of the property (the "yellow" portion) which, on their own
findings, was never let out on rent, and if not, whether the decree to
that extent is vitiated by a jurisdictional error in expanding the scope
of a rent-control eviction suit into a composite title and encroachment
action.
(h) Whether the concurrent findings that the statutory grounds for
eviction under Section 12(1)(a), (b) and (c) stood proved are vitiated
by an erroneous approach in law, inasmuch as the courts
belowconflated' disbelief of the defendants' story of sale with positive
proof of the plaintiff's grounds for eviction, instead of independently
and strictly testing whether the ingredients of the said provisions were
made out on the plaintiffs own evidence as required by the rent-control
statute?"
9. Heard learned counsel for appellants.
10. So far as the contention that defendant No. 1 has purchased the suit
premises for a consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/- is concerned, this Court is of
considered opinion that no sale deed was executed. Even defendants have not
produced any agreement to sell. Even there is nothing in the written
statement that by what time plaintiff had agreed to execute the sale deed.
Furthermore, defendant No. 2 did not enter in the witness box to prove that
an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was paid by her to plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that
defendant No. 2 cannot be held to be the owner of property in dispute or is
entitled to protect her possession as per Section 53-A of Transfer of Property
Act. Furthermore, the title of a party would stand transferred only when a
registered sale deed is executed, and in the present case, there is no sale deed
at all. Thus, the Courts below did not commit any mistake by holding that
defendants are not the owners of property in dispute.
11. So far as landlord-tenant relationship is concerned, defendants
have relied upon diary entries purportedly maintained by defendants as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4269
8 SA-3156-2025
Exhibit D-1. Although both the Courts below have not relied upon this
document, but first line of this document mentions 'accounts in relation to
"house rent", interest, as well as consideration amount as on 31/06/2006'.
The use of words "house rent" could not be explained by counsel for
appellants. It is submitted by Shri Dixit that since this document (Exhibit D-
1) has not been relied upon by the Courts below, therefore, even the words
"house rent" should not be read. Unfortunately, this Court is unable to accept
the said contention. Exhibit D-1 says the consideration amount was paid by
defendant No.1, whereas it is the case of defendants that consideration
amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was paid by defendant No. 2. Furthermore, Exhibit
D-1 does not contain any signature of plaintiff to acknowledge the receipt of
amount. Furthermore, defendants have also not filed any document to show
the source of the cash amount which was paid by them to the plaintiff.
12. Under these circumstances, if the Courts below have not relied
upon the said document (Exhibit D-1), then it cannot be said that any mistake
was committed by the Courts below, but it is suffice to mention here that
document Exhibit D-1 was disbelieved for the purposes of ascertaining the
fact that as to whether an amount of Rs. 9,00,00/- was paid by defendants to
plaintiff or not. However, not only the opening line of this document
(Exhibit D-1) mentions "house rent" but in the body of this document, it is
also mentioned that house rent of Rs. 14,400/- was paid from 01/01/2004 to
December 2004 at the rate of Rs. 1200/-. Thus, defendants themselves have
admitted that property in dispute was on rent and they were making payment
of rent to plaintiff.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4269
9 SA-3156-2025
13. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
the Courts below have not committed any illegality by holding that the
landlord-tenant relationship was there between defendants and plaintiff, and
defendants are in arrears of rent. Furthermore, defendants had specifically
denied the title of plaintiff and had tried to contend that in fact, defendants
are the owners. The Supreme Court in the case of Sheela And Ors. v. Firm
Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 375 , has held that
denial of title means that it must amount to renunciation by the tenant of his
character, either by setting up a title in another or by claiming title in
himself.
14. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
the Courts below did not commit any mistake in passing the decree for
eviction.
15. As no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal,
accordingly, judgment and decree dated 29/09/2025 passed by 12 th District
Judge, Gwalior, in R.C.A. No. 367/2024, as well as judgment and decree
dated 24/10/2024 passed by 14th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior, in
R.C.S. A. No. 2600005/2015, are hereby affirmed.
16. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
