JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a composite suit filed by the appellant herein for eviction of the tenant is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 28th September, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Second Appeal No. 260 of 2004, whereby and whereunder while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, the suit filed by the appellant for eviction of the respondent was dismissed.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

4. The premises in dispute is a shop located on the ground floor of House No.370-D, Parasi Mohalla, Neemuch Cantt, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Appellant purchased the property in question on 23rd March, 1996 from Smt. Anntu Jenra w/o Sh. Turab Bhai. Respondent was a tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month. By a letter dated 29th July, 1996 the appellant informed the respondent in regard to the purchase of the property by her and requested the respondent for payment of monthly rent to her. Since, despite the service of the said letter, the respondent failed and/or neglected to make payment of rent, the appellant terminated the tenancy of the respondent and requested him to vacate the tenanted premises. It was also mentioned that the shop in question was required by the appellant bona fide so as to enable her son to carry out business therein. Respondent, while denying any liability to pay any rent to the appellant, also denied her title contending that he has not been informed of the sale of the property by the original landlord in favour of the appellant.

5. Appellant thereafter filed a composite suit for eviction of the respondent on the grounds of :- (i) default in payment of rent, (ii) her bona fide requirement; and (iii) denial of her title on the part of the respondent.

6. The trial court considered the merit of the suit for passing a decree on the ground of bona fide requirement as also on arrears of rent. A decree for mesne profits was also passed. In regard to denial of title, the trial court noticed that since the earlier landlord did not give any notice of transfer to the respondent, the title of the appellant was although denied at that time but the tenant now accepted his title.

It was furthermore held that since the court had condoned the delay for deposit/payment of rent and allowed the respondent time to pay the rent, the delay in deposit of the same cannot form the basis for grant of a decree for eviction on that count. However, as stated earlier, the court decreed the suit on the ground of bona fide requirement on the part of the landlord and directed the respondent to handover vacant possession within two months.

7. An appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No.1A of 2004 filed by the respondent before the District Judge was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 17th February, 2004.

8. Respondent preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which as stated earlier, was allowed by reason of the impugned judgment and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed on that ground alone.

9. The High Court in its judgment, relying on or on the basis Nandlal v. Nangibai [2006 (1) M.P.L.J. 231], held that the civil court has no jurisdiction as the suit was decreed only on the ground of bona fide requirement on the part of the appellant. Nandlal (supra) relied on two decisions of this Court in Dhannalal vs. Kalawatibai and others, [(2002) 6 SCC 16] and Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, [(2002) 3 SCC 717].

10. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that keeping in view the pleadings of the parties as also the findings of the learned trial judge, the High Court must be held to have committed a serious error in holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction. It was pointed