(1.) THIS is an appeal by a tenant against whom a decree for eviction has been passed under section 12(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act on the ground that prior to the institution of the suit the tenant denied the title of the landlord and thus committed an act which was likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant merely denied the derivative title of the plaintiff which did not amount to denial of the landlord's title, that mere denial of title cannot be a ground for eviction under section 12 (1) (c), and that in the present case it has not been established nor has it been pleaded that the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's title is likely to affect him adversely or substantially, therefore, no decree for eviction could be passed on the ground mentioned in section 12 (1) (c) of the Act.
(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant merely denied the derivative title of the plaintiff is not factually correct. It is now no longer in dispute that the defendant was let in as a tenant by one Abdul Gani who was originally the owner of the accommodation. Abdul Gani sold the house to the plaintiff on August 14, 1968. On August 21, 1968, the defendant issued a notice addressed to Pritamsingh, who is husband of the plaintiff, and to one Jumma. In that notice the defendant stated that he was tenant of Jumma who had entered into an agreement with him for selling the house for Rs. 9,000. It was also stated therein that Jumma had promised to execute the sale-deed by Diwali 1968. It was further stated that Pritamsingh and Jumma were called upon to execute and register a sale-deed in favour of the defendant, otherwise a suit would be instituted against them for that purpose. It will be seen that in this notice the defendant set up a title in Jumma who, as is now accepted, had nothing to do with the house and also pleaded an agreement for sale of the house in his favour from Jumma. THE notice Ex. D-2 was replied by Abdul Gani and Jumma and this reply is Ex.P-6. In Ex. P-6 it was made clear that the defendant was a tenant of Abdul Gani and not of Jumma and that Abdul Gani had sold house to the plaintiff. It was also stated that the plea of the defendant that there was an agreement for sale in his favour was false. THE defendant was also requested to pay rent to the plaintiff. THEreafter, the plaintiff issued a notice on March 14, 1969, which is Ex. D-1. In this notice the plaintiff stated that she had purchased the house from Abdul Gani and that the defendant was in arrears of rent from August 14, 1968. THE defendant's tenancy was terminated and he was asked to vacate and to pay the arrears of rent. In reply to this notice the defendant by Ex. D-3 dated April 5, 1969, again took the stand that he was tenant of Jumma who was the owner of the house and that Jumma had agreed to sell the house to him by Diwali 1968. THE plaintiff issued another notice Ex. P-1 on December 24, 1969, again demanding arrears of rent and asking the defendant to vacate. This notice was replied by the defendant by sending Ex. P-3, on January 13, 1970. In this reply again the defendant reiterated the stand that Jumma was the owner of the house and that Jumma had promised to sell the house to him. THE plaintiff's title and her right to recover rent were denied. It will be seen that in the notices Exs. D-2, D-3 and P-3 the defendant not only denied the derivative title of the plaintiff, but set up a title in a third person, namely, Jumma, who had nothing to do with the house. THE defendant did not even accept that Abdul Gani was his landlord. In the circumstances, the denial was a complete denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant as also between Abdul Gani (plaintiff's predecessor) and the defendant.