Difference Between Suit for Eviction and Suit for Ejectment
🔹 Suit for Eviction vs. Suit for Ejectment
1. Meaning
Suit for Eviction:
Filed by a landlord against a tenant to recover possession of property. It arises out of a landlord–tenant relationship. The cause of action is usually default in rent, breach of lease conditions, or landlord’s bona fide requirement.
Suit for Ejectment:
Filed by a person having title or ownership against someone who is in illegal or unauthorized possession (like a trespasser, squatter, or a licensee overstaying). It is not based on tenancy, but on ownership and possession rights.
2. Who can file
Eviction → Only a landlord (or someone entitled to receive rent).
Ejectment → Any person having ownership/title/possession rights.
3. Cause of action
Eviction → Termination of tenancy + statutory grounds (e.g., non-payment, subletting, bona fide requirement).
Ejectment → Unauthorized possession or denial of title. Cause arises when possession becomes wrongful.
4. Law applicable
Eviction → Rent Control Acts (state-specific) + Transfer of Property Act.
Ejectment → Civil Procedure Code + Transfer of Property Act + Limitation Act (Articles 64 & 65).
5. Relief claimed
Eviction → Possession + arrears of rent + mesne profits.
Ejectment → Possession based on ownership/title + declaration of ownership if necessary.
6. Limitation
Eviction → Within period prescribed by tenancy/rent laws (cause of action may be recurring).
Ejectment → 12 years (Article 65, Limitation Act) if based on title; 12 years (Article 64) if based on prior possession.
7. Burden of Proof
Eviction → Landlord must prove landlord–tenant relationship and one of the grounds for eviction.
Ejectment → Plaintiff must prove title/ownership or prior lawful possession.
8. Key Case Laws
(a) Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal (SC, 2014)
Facts: Plaintiff sued for eviction but failed to prove landlord–tenant relationship.
Held: A suit for eviction cannot succeed without proving tenancy. If plaintiff relies on ownership, it must be a suit for ejectment, not eviction.
Principle: Relationship of landlord and tenant is sine qua non for eviction suit.
(b) Mst. Dipo v. Wassan Singh (SC, 1983)
Facts: Co-sharers were in joint possession; one tried to evict the other.
Held: Until partition, co-owners are entitled to every inch of property. Eviction cannot lie, but ejectment can be claimed against a trespasser.
Principle: Eviction requires tenancy, ejectment requires ownership.
(c) Munisami Naidu v. Ranganathan (SC, 1991)
Facts: Tenant denied landlord’s title.
Held: If a tenant repudiates landlord’s title, he loses protection under Rent Acts and may be ejected.
Principle: Denial of landlord’s title = forfeiture of tenancy.
(d) K.K. Dewan v. District Judge, AIR 1990 All 80
Held: In ejectment, ownership/title is central; in eviction, tenancy is central.
Principle: Two remedies are distinct in nature.
9. Practical Example
A lets out his shop to B for 11 months. B stops paying rent. A files Eviction Suit under Rent Act.
C, a trespasser, occupies A’s vacant plot without permission. A files Ejectment Suit in civil court based on title.
🔹 Key Differences in Table Form
| Basis | Suit for Eviction | Suit for Ejectment |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship | Landlord–Tenant | Owner–Trespasser (no tenancy) |
| Cause of Action | Default, breach, bona fide need | Unauthorized/illegal possession |
| Relief | Vacant possession, arrears of rent | Possession based on ownership/title |
| Law | Rent Acts + TPA | CPC + TPA + Limitation Act |
| Limitation | Recurring (monthly tenancy etc.) | 12 years (Art. 64/65 Limitation Act) |
| Proof | Tenancy + ground for eviction | Ownership/title/prior possession |
| Case Law | Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal | Mst. Dipo v. Wassan Singh |
âś… Conclusion:
Eviction = only where tenancy exists.
Ejectment = where defendant is a trespasser/unauthorized occupant.
Courts treat them as separate causes of action, and choosing the wrong remedy may cause dismissal.
RELATED Blog
0 comments