TRIBHUVANSHANKAR versus AMRUTLAL

TRIBHUVANSHANKAR versus AMRUTLAL

Once the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, no eviction is possible under the Act, and the issue of title and adverse possession must be determined in separate proceedings; time spent in litigation suspends running of limitation for adverse possession.

Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Tribhuvanshankar; Respondent Defendant: Amrutlal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Allowed by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Adverse Possession, Limitation, Landlord Tenant Relationship
Property Law Civil Procedure Eviction Adverse Possession Limitation Landlord Tenant Relationship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tribhuvanshankar

Appellant Plaintiff

Amrutlal

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Allowed by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
  2. 2 Whether adverse possession has been perfected by the respondent-defendant
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction or recovery of possession under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961

Ratio Decidendi

Once the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, no eviction is possible under the Act, and the issue of title and adverse possession must be determined in separate proceedings; time spent in litigation suspends running of limitation for adverse possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of High Court affirmed only to extent that relationship of landlord and tenant was not established and eviction under the Act denied.
  • Plaintiff permitted to institute fresh suit for title and recovery of possession within two months.