JUDGMENT

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. - This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the defendants challenging the concurring judgment and decree of eviction on different grounds enumerated under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961').

Plaintiffs' case :

2. The original plaintiff - Brijrani, Widow of Lalloo preferred the suit on 14-11-1971 i.e. about 48 years ago, on the pleadings that the defendant No.1 - Tulsiram, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Tiwari was occupying plaintiffs two open plots situated at Hospital Ward, Tahsil & District Raipur, as detailed in the plaint schedule map as tenant for yearly rent of Rs.700/- for which lease was granted by Pandit Ramnarayan Dixit and plaintiff's husband Lalloo Prasad Dixit, both sons of Mohanlal Dixit by registered lease deed dated 14-10-1946. The lease was for a period of 25 years from 1-1-1946 to 31-10-1971. Lalloo Prasad died in the year 1946 whereas Ramnarayan died in 1959 leaving the plaintiff as the sole surviving heir to succeed the property. The defendant No.1 thus became tenant of the plaintiff and he has been paying the rent to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 did not pay rent for the period from 1-11-1970 to 31-10-1971, therefore, the lease stands terminated after the said date, but the defendant No.1 did not deliver the vacant possession rendering his possession wrongful.

3. It was pleaded that despite the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act, 1950'). The suit property having not vested in the State the original plaintiff's brother and brother-in-law continued to own the property. The suit land having situated in Mahal No.2, Raipur, over which plaintiff, which term includes is predecessors, had no proprietary interest, there was no question of vesting of property in the State due to the Act, 1950.

4. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant has sublet the shop situated over the suit land to the other defendants without her or her predecessors consent or permission and further that the plaintiff requires the plots including the plots occupied by the defendants No.2 to 7 for constructing houses on them. The plaintiff claimed ejectment under 12 (1) (a) (b) (c) (h) & (n); vacant possession from the defendant No.1 as also from the defendants No.2 to 7 of the respective plots/ shops occupied by them as sub-tenant of defendant No.1. The plaintiff also claimed damages at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month.

5. Upon denial of plaintiff's title to the suit premises, the plaintiff also raised ground for eviction for denial of landlords title as the legal heirs of original defendant No.1 Tulsiram having inherited the tenancy, they stepped into the shoes of original defendant No.1 and, as such, they are also estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff. The original plaintiff Brijrani having died during pendency, the substituted plaintiffs being arrayed on the strength of WILL executed by Brijrani, denial of the said WILL by the defendant No.1 or by the sub-tenants was objected in the amended plaint on the plea that the defendants have no right to challenge the WILL executed by Brijrani as such plea can be raised only by a person setting up title in himself as heir of Brijrani. It was also stated that by virtue of the WILL duly registered on 13-12-1985, the substituted plaintiffs are entitled to continue the suit as they have become landlords and the defendants their tenant by operation of law.

Defendants' case :

6. The defendant, which term included the legal heirs of defendant No.1, contested the suit on pleading that Tulsiram held portion of plot A, B, C & D on lease from Mohanlal Malguzar, the father-in-law of the original plaintiff, since 1921 and the remaining portion of plot was held on lease by Tulsiram's cousin Ramratan. Ramratan had obtained lease from Mohanlal since 1921. After death o