1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 250   OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.5412/2011)

FIROJUDDIN & ANR.           Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

BABU SINGH             Respondent(s)

           O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellants purchased the open and closed area  

of House No.3, North Gafur Ki Bajariya, Indore  by a  

registered  Sale  Deed  from  Smt.  Kaushar  Farzana  

daughter  of  Hakim  Ajmal  Khan  of  Indore.  The  

respondent  herein  was  residing  in  the  two  rooms  

constructed  on  the  ground  floor  of  the  aforesaid  

house  on  rent  since  the  time  of  Smt.  Kaushar  

Farzana. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for  

possession by way of ejectment of the respondent-

defendant from the suit property and for payment of

2

arrears of rent under Sections 12(1)(a), (e) & (c)  

of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. They  

contended  that  the  respondent-defendant  has  

defaulted in payment of rent and that they do not  

have  any  other  alternative  suitable  residential  

accommodation in the City of Indore.  

The  Trial  Court,  inter  alia,  held  that  the  

relationship  of  landlord  and  tenant  between  the  

appellants-plaintiffs  and  the  respondent-defendant  

has  been  proved  and  the  respondent-defendant  was  

held liable to pay arrears of rent.  Being aggrieved  

by  the  judgment  and  decree  passed  by  the  Trial  

Court,  the  respondent-defendnt  filed  an  appeal  

before  the  Court  of  Additional  District  Judge,  

Indore.  The First Appellate Court holding that the  

appellants-plaintiffs have bona fide requirement of  

the  suit  property  for  residence,  dismissed  the  

appeal  filed  by  the  respondent-defendant.  The  

respondent-defendant thereafter filed second appeal  

before  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Indore  

Bench.

3

The High Court held that “even if it be taken that  

the title of the plaintiffs is duly established, on  

the basis of the sale deed, but still unless and  

until  the  relationship  of  landlord  and  tenant  

between  the parties is also established, the suit  

for possession, by way of ejectment, could not have  

been decreed.” Consequently, the appeal filed by the  

respondent-defendant was allowed and the judgments  

and decree of the Courts below were set aside by the  

High  Court.  The  appellants-plaintiffs  are  thus  

before this Court by challenging the judgment and  

order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,  

Indore Bench.   

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

and  have  perused  the  impugned  judgment  and  the  

judgments of the Courts below.  

It is not disputed that the suit property is in  

possession of the respondent-defendant. The  Trial  

Court having held that the relationship of landlord  

and tenant between the appellants-plaintiffs and the  

respondent-defendant  was  proved  and  this  finding  

having been affirmed by the First Appellate Court,

4

in our considered view, the High Court committed an  

error by setting aside the judgments and decrees of  

the  Courts  below  and  allowing  the  appeal  of  the  

respondent-defendant.   

Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside,  

the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is  

restored  and  the  appeal  is  allowed.  Parties  are  

directed to bear their respective costs.  

However, as prayed for by the learned counsel for  

the respondent, two years' time is granted to the  

respondent to vacate the premises upon filing usual  

undertaking  in  the  Registry  of  this  Court  within  

four weeks from today.   

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi; January 06, 2012.