In a landlord-tenant dispute, the factum of ownership or title is not required to be proved as strictly as in a title suit. Admissions made by the defendant are crucial in determining the relationship of landlord and tenant.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC) arises out of judgment and decree dated 01/03/2002 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 45-A/2000 arising out of judgment and decree passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 8A/1999.

2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against the respondent/defendant on the ground of arrears of rent and for recovery of the rent under section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The plaintiff /appellant pleaded that she owns a Pator, which was purchased by her on 27/03/1985 by a registered sale deed and the same was rented to defendant @ Rs. 100/- per month by an oral tenancy. The respondent/defendant paid the rent for about one year, but from June, 1996 stopped payment of rent and also utilized the electricity and did not pay the electricity consumption charges, therefore, the electricity connection was disconnected. Thereafter, she used electricity by putting direct wire on the poles. In spite of demand, rent was not paid nor the possession of Pator was handed over and the notice was replied which was based on wrong facts.

3. The written statement was filed by the defendant by taking the plea that plaintiff's father was agreed to sell the Pator on 23/03/1985 and obtained Rs. 10,000/- under an oral agreement to sale and it was pleaded that it was agreed that no rent will be charged. The defendant also alleged that for execution of sale deed, the father of plaintiff /appellant was orally approached and on 09/10/1994, the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- was also taken and on an ordinary paper the agreement was written and the sale deed was to be executed up to 08/10/1999. The plaintiff wants to usurp Rs. 25,000/- paid by defendant. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. The shop was not taken on rent.

4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence of both the parties dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has not proved to be the owner and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant.

5. The appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal before the 1st appellate Court along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking on record the registered sale deed of disputed Pator executed by Babulal in her favour, the copy of the order of mutation in the Municipality and payment of house tax in respect to the said Pator. The 1st appellate Court dismissed the application and also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Hence, the appellant preferred this second appeal.

6. This Court vide order dated 25/10/2002 has admitted the appeal for final hearing and has framed the following substantial question of law :-

'Whether the findings of the 1st appellate court that the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the defendant is vitiated as the similar finding arising ignoring the material admission made by the defendant in her reply Ex. P/4.'

7. The appellant has taken the ground that the courts below have not accepted the settled principle of law that in a suit for eviction between the landlord and tenant, the title of the property has no relevance at all, as well as framing of the issue to this effect and finding was an unnecessary exercise by the Courts below. It is further submitted that in a suit between the landlord and tenant, the Courts were required only to see the nature of possession of defendant in the accommodation and if the defendant is not living as owner in the property nor she is claiming ownership rights, then the presumption is that she is living as a tenant. The courts below have perversely appreciated the evidence available on record.

The learned 1st appellate court has wrongly dismissed the appli