JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.—This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the Rajasthan High Court confirming the decree of eviction of the appellant from certain premises under Section 13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that he had denied the title of the respondent-landlord.

2. The appellant has been in possession of the structure in question since 1953, when he was inducted therein by the owner one Nawab M. Ali Khan. In 1969 Nawab M. Ali Khan died, and it appears that some dispute arose between his legal representatives and the present respondent 1. It further appears that the dispute was finally settled in favour of respondent 1 and according to the case of the appellant he duly recognised him as his landlord and started paying rent. In 1973 the appellant received a notice from the Municipal authorities asking him to remove the disputed structures on the ground that it was erected on government land. According to the appellants case, the notice was issued at the instance of respondent 1, who was anxious to evict the appellant. The appellant, in the situation, was forced to file a suit in the civil court challenging the validity of the notice and praying for injunction against the Municipal authorities from interfering with his possession. Respondent 1 filed the present suit on the twin grounds of default in payment of rent and denial of his title. The case of default in payment of rent was rejected but the suit was decreed on the ground of denial of title. On appeal, the Additional District Judge confirmed the decree. The appellants second appeal was also rejected by the High Court at the admission stage.

3. The appellants plaint in the earlier suit by which it is suggested that he challenged the respondents title was filed in the present case and marked as Ex. 1. The first appellate court has while recording its finding against the appellant observed that the statements in the plaint amount to disclaimer and, in any event, it appears that the appellant failed to acknowledge the landlords title therein and consequently he was liable to eviction under clause (f) of Section 13(1) of the Act, which reads as follows :

13. Eviction of tenants.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent thereof to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied-

(f) that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the latter has not waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant; or We do not agree. There is no statement in the plaint at all challenging the landlords right and there was no occasion for the appellant to deal with this aspect in view of the scope of his suit. On the other hand, the pleading shows that he described the nature of his possession as that of a tenant and the interest of the present respondent 1, who was defendant 2 in that suit, as that of a landlord.

4. Mr S. S. Khanduja, the learned counsel for the respondent, relied on the last sentence of paragraph 1 of the plaint, as mentioned below, and contended that since defendant 2 was not one of the heirs of the deceased Nawab M. Ali Khan, this sentence should be read as denial of his title :

He sold out some portion of his property in his lifetime and the remaining property came to be owned by his heirs i.e. defendants 2 to 6.

Firstly it has to be noticed that although the respondent was wrongly described as an heir, his title to the property was acknowledged. Further this sentence cannot be read in isolation. The position is explained in paragraph 5 of the abovenoted plaint in the following terms :

5. That the land where the stall type kachhi shops of the plaintiffs have been constructed, defendant 2 has buil