2013 (11) TMI 1793 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Relationship of landlord and tenant.
2. Title and adverse possession.
3. Jurisdiction of civil court under special enactments.
4. Amendment of plaint for recovery of possession.

Summary:

1. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:
The appellant-plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 259A/86 for eviction and mesne profits, claiming the respondent-defendant was a tenant under the previous owner. The trial court found no landlord-tenant relationship, a finding not contested by the appellant's counsel. The High Court affirmed this, stating that without proving the landlord-tenant relationship, eviction could not be sought under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

2. Title and Adverse Possession:
The trial court held that the sale deed to the appellant was without consideration, and the respondent had acquired title by adverse possession. The appellate court reversed this, validating the sale deed and rejecting the adverse possession claim. The High Court, however, reinstated the trial court's decision, emphasizing that eviction could not be based on title alone without proving the landlord-tenant relationship.

3. Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Special Enactments:
The Supreme Court analyzed the jurisdictional limits of civil courts under special enactments like the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It distinguished between suits under the Transfer of Property Act, where equitable relief under Order VII Rule 7 CPC could be granted, and suits under special rent control laws, which require proving the landlord-tenant relationship. The High Court correctly held that no equitable relief could be granted under the Act but erred in affirming the trial court's decision on adverse possession.

4. Amendment of Plaint for Recovery of Possession:
The appellant sought to amend the plaint to include recovery of possession. The High Court ruled this impermissible as it would convert the suit from eviction to one for title and possession, which is barred by limitation. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the appellant to file a fresh suit for title and recovery of possession, noting that the institution of the initial suit arrested the running of time for adverse possession.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellant to file a new suit for title and recovery of possession within two months, clarifying that the time spent in the current proceedings arrested the period for adverse possession. The appeal was allowed with no costs awarded to either party.