The denial of the title of the landlord by the tenant is a ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. However, the denial must be clear and unequivocal and made to the knowledge of the landlord.

       1. This is a defendant-tenant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated March 18, 1978 by which, he allowed the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent (Landlord) and set aside the decree of dismissal of the suit for ejectment dated March 20, 1976 passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No. 375 of 1975.

2. A few facts deserve recall here. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the premises mentioned in para 2 of the plaint situate in a building described in para 1 of the plaint. The building is situate in Beldaron-ka-bas, Jodhpur. The ejectment was sought on.the.ground that the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff when Suit No. 425 of 1972, Plaintiff: Balkishan v. Defendant : Shivnarain which is pending trial at present in the Court of Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur. The Suit No. 425/72 is for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 146.95 p and possession. Para 2 of the additional pleas of the written statement which was filed in that suit reads as under:-

2 ;g gS fd oknh us fdjk;k fpB~Bh is'k ugha gS fd blfy, dkSu DkSu ekfyd gS A ;g iw.kZr;k ekywe ugha gS A oknh us fdjk;k fpB~Bh ds vuqlkj vko';d Qjksd eqdnek Jh ukFk nkl ds dk;e eqdke dks o nhxj ekfydks dks ikVhZ ugha cuk;k gS vr ;g nkok ugha py ldrk gS A
The case of the plaintiff is that the contents of the aforesaid para 2 amount to the denial of (landlords') title inasmuch as the defendant has set up title in his father Seth Raghunath Dass and his legal representatives. According to him, this is covered by Section 13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (No. XVII of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The ejectment from the premises in suit was sought on this ground. The defendant resisted the suit. He, inter alia, out pleaded that the plaintiff did not produce the rent note in that suit and with seeing the rent note, he could not know the correct names of the owners of the demised premises, and, therefore he took the objection in para 2 mentioned above when he filed the written statement in Civil Original Suit No. 425 of 1972. He contended that he has not challenged the title of the plaintiff but he merely raised an objection about the maintainability of the suit in the absence of all the owners of the demised premises. He further pleaded that he did not set up any title in the third persons but the objection was raised as the rent note was not produced. He subsequently amended his written statement to which a rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court framed five issues in the first instance and subsequently additional issue No. 1 was also framed. In this appeal, I am only concerned with issue No. 2 which when translated into English, reads as under:-

"Whether the defendant challenged the title of the plaintiff in respect of the property in dispute ? If it is so, what is the effect ?"
The burden of his issue was pleaded upon the plaintiff.

3. After trial, the learned Munsif, by his judgment dated March 20, 1972 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. Being dissatisfied with the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court, the plaintiff went in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, by his judgment dated March 18, 1978 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment with costs.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal as aforesaid.

5. The arguments in the appeal were heard on September 13, 1978 and the learned counsel for the parties submitted that as the appeal has been heard at length, it may be finally disposed of. The appeal was ordered to be listed for dictation of judgment on September 14, 1978. On that date, the judgment could not be dictated. When the appeal came up for dictation of judgment on September 15, 1978, M