Judgment

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. The enviable position to which the tenant of a shop building has ensconced himself as corollary to the judgment of the High Court (under appeal now) is that he need not thenceforth be accountable to any landlord. On the one side when the claim of appellant to be the landlord has been dis-countenanced by the High Court, at the other side the person whom the tenant proclaimed as his landlord has disclaimed the credential. If the judgment of the High Court remains in force the tenant stands elevated virtually to the status of owner of the suit building. But appellant is not prepared to concede defeat and hence he has come up with this appeal by special leave.

3. Facts which led to the aforesaid position can be summarised thus: Respondent was the tenant of the suit building (consisting of a shop room and godown premises) which belonged to one Narain Prasad. As per a sale deed executed on 23.1.1989 (Ext. P. 11) Narain Prasad transferred his rights in the suit building to the appellant. On its footing appellant filed Civil Suit No. 75-A of 1990 for eviction of the respondent under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”