Mala fide denial of landlord’s title in written statement justifies eviction under Section 12(1)(c).

The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

The Trial Court dismissed the claim regarding arrears of rent but granted an eviction decree under Section 12(1)(c) on two grounds: (i) the defendant created a nuisance, and (ii) the defendant denied the plaintiff's title.

The defendant/appellant challenged this decree before the High Court.

The defendant’s plea was that the property was subject to Nazul (government) proceedings and that tenants had been orally directed to pay rent to the State, thereby calling upon the plaintiff to prove his title.

However, during cross-examination, the defendant admitted he had no documents regarding such proceedings and that no case was actually pending against the plaintiff in the Nazul department.

1. Whether vague averments of nuisance without specific dates or corroborating evidence are sufficient to sustain a decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

2. Whether the defendant's demand for the plaintiff to prove his title, based on unverified allegations of government ownership, constitutes a "denial of title" sufficient for eviction under Section 12(1)(c).

Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, which permits eviction for acts of the tenant that are likely to affect the landlord’s interest adversely and substantially.

Section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the forfeiture of lease upon the lessee's denial of the lessor's title.

The court cited Keshar Bai v. Chhunulal (2014) 11 SCC 438 and Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash (2002) 3 SCC 375, which establish that while a bona fide request for proof of ownership to protect a tenant's interest is permissible, a clear and unequivocal denial of title or a mala fide disclaimer of tenancy serves as a valid ground for eviction.

Regarding the ground of nuisance, the court found the plaintiff's evidence "completely unsatisfactory," noting that vague allegations of nuisance during rent collection without specific dates or corroborating documents like FIRs cannot satisfy the requirements of Section 12(1)(c).

Conversely, regarding the denial of title, the court observed that the defendant specifically pleaded in his written statement that the plaintiff must prove his title due to alleged Nazul proceedings.

The court analyzed the defendant's cross-examination (DW-1), where he admitted he had never seen the relevant Nazul files, possessed no documents to support his defense, and eventually conceded that no case was pending against the plaintiff.

The court concluded that this denial was not bona fide but was made with mala fide intention to cloud the plaintiff’s title, thus justifying the decree for eviction.

The court affirmed the decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(c) on the ground of denial of title.

The court granted the appellant six months to vacate the premises (until 23/09/2026), subject to the regular payment of rent and the filing of an undertaking before the Trial Court, noting that failure to vacate would invite execution proceedings and potential prosecution for contempt of court.