1. - This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment & decree of the first appellate court dated 22/9/1987 dismissing his appeal thereby upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Bharatpur dated 2/4/1983.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the defendant-respondent for eviction from the tenanted premises, which was a shop, inter-alia on the ground that this shop was gifted to him by a registered gift-deed dated 6/4/1968 executed by Ramcharan Lal. He has thus become landlord of the shop. Suit was filed on the ground of : (i) denial of title of the plaintiff by the defendant, (ii) default committed by the defendant in paying of rent for more than six months and that (iii) the plaintiff required the shop for his reasonable bonafide necessity, for his own occupation for carrying on the business in weights, brass, iron and other metallic kaserat goods. According to the plaintiff, defendant had purchased two shops in front of the tenanted shop in dispute in the name of his son Hari Shankar and other in the name of his (defendant) wife Smt.Triveni Devi. He himself had been carrying on the business from one of these shops. Defendant in his written-statement denied that Ramcharan Lal, original landlord executed any gift-deed in favour of the plaintiff nor any such gift-deed was registered. Therefore, necessity of the plaintiff cannot be considered reasonable and bonafide. This has been done by the plaintiff in collusion with Ramcharan Lal only to ensure eviction of the defendant. It was denied that any default in payment of rent was committed and also denied that defendant had purchased two shops in front of the tenanted shop. Shops were purchased by his son Hari Shankar and wife of the defendant Smt.Triveni Devi from their own money and defendant was not in possession of any of them. Plaintiff filed rejoinder pleading that father of Ramcharan Lal filed a suit being Suit No.47/1955, which was decided on 6/4/1965 against the defendant and his father on the ground of default of payment of rent and reasonable bonafide necessity. Defendant deposited the arrears of rent and cost of the suit and got the suit dismissed. It was also pleaded that in the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for fixation of standard rent, provisional rent was determined and same was not paid regularly in time for more than six months and therefore defendant too was a defaulter of second time, hence not entitled to any protection under the Rent Control Act, 2001. Alleged collusion between the plaintiff and Ramcharan Lal was denied. It was asserted that the plaintiff had been living separately from Ramcharan Lal and they are carrying on their business separately. Regarding purchase of the shops by the defendant, it was reiterated that those shops were purchased by not son of the defendant and defendant's wife but such purchase was made by the defendant from his own money. Trial court dismissed the suit and the first appeal there against was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff.

3. This Court admitted the appeal on 14/9/1988 for hearing on following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff in the suit premises particularly in view of the fact of his having admitted the gift of the shop in favour of the plaintiff by Ramcharan Lal in the suit for determination of the standard rent filed by the defendant in July, 1968 soon after the execution of the gift-deed?

(ii) Whether in view of the fact that he had accepted the derivative title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises the defence was estopped from disputing the fact that the plaintiff was his landlord?

4. Shri J.P. Goyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that allegation of defe