IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 519 of 2003 RUSTAM KHAN Versus SARDAR SHRI JAYENDRA RAO Appearance:

Shri Harish Dixit - Senior Advocate with Nimish Hardeniya - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10/11/2003 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No.1-A/2003, as well as the judgment and decree dated 20/11/2002 passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class- II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No.286-A/1998, by which a decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (denial of title)

has been passed.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant, who has lost his case from both the Courts below.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the father of the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff. The father of the defendant died on 01/08/1996 and thereafter the defendant became the tenant of the suit shop on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The defendant had paid Rs.600/- on 13/01/1997 by way of rent, and a rent receipt was also issued to the defendant, which also contains the signature of the defendant. The defendant had filed a suit in the Court of Ninth Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, against the plaintiff & his mother for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was registered as Case No.65-A/1997, in which the defendant had admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 10 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act for fixation of standard rent. In reply to the application, the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant has made himself liable to be evicted under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

4. The defendant/appellant filed his written statement and claimed that in the application which was filed for fixation of standard rent, he had never denied the title of the plaintiff. He had merely claimed that the defendant is regularly making payment of rent to Smt. Nalini Awad, who is the mother of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had never disclosed himself to be the owner or co-owner of the property in dispute. It was further pleaded that if the plaintiff claims himself to be the owner or co-owner, then the defendant has no objection in accepting that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute. The written statement/reply which was filed by the defendant in the proceedings under Section 10 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act does not come within the purview of denial of title.

5. The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit on the ground that the appellant/defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the appellate Court.

7. This Court, by order dated 23/02/2005, admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law :

"(1) Whether the appellant, who is regularly paying the rent to the mother of the plaintiff can be said to have denied her title and is liable to be evicted under section

12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act ?

(2) Whether the tenant, who is paying the rent to the mother of the landlord can be said to disclaim title of the landlord?"

8. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that the appellant had not denied the title of the plaintiff in the proceeding which was initiated by plaintiff under Section 10 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. He had merely stated that he is making payment of rent to the mother of the plaintiff/res