The tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title, and the scope of inquiry in special proceedings is limited to examining the relation of tenant and landlord.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT-APPLICANT had initiated proceedings under Section 23-A (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'act') being a widow lady, for eviction of the shop of her house bearing Municipal No. 40/574 situated in Daulatganj, Lashkar:gwalior, against petitioner/non-applicant, before the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior (in short 'r. C. A. '), on the ground that the shop was let out to non-applicant under a rent note dated 7-9-1974. The son of the applicant-land lady Manish Kumar Agrawal has passed B. E. (Mechanical) in the year 1990 and roaming unemployed. The applicant needs this shop for starting business of her son for sale of electrical goods.

( 2 ) THE petitioner/non-applicant had contested the proceedings on the ground that the shop was given to him on rent by late Suman Kant, who was husband of the applicant and Suman Kant during his lifetime, under a family arrangement, had transferred the disputed shop to his son Manish Kumar and further directed non-applicant-petitioner to pay rent of the shop to Manish Kumar. In the circumstances, ownership of the applicant in so far as disputed shop is concerned, was denied and it was further pleaded that the proceedings for eviction of the shop are not maintainable in absence of all the necessary heirs of late Suman Kant.

( 3 ) THE occasion to file present revision arose at the time when applicant/respondent was examined before the said authority and during her cross-examination, she admitted that her husband Suman Kant was adopted by late Jagannath Prasad and Kishan was the natural father of Suman Kant. The petitioner then filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the written statement to the effect that plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit property in name of her husband Suman Kant. The learned R. C. A. by impugned order found that in facts and circumstances of the case, the proposed amendment is wholly irrelevant and, therefore, rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner/tenant has come up in this revision praying for redressal of his grievance as sought for.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned R. C. A. has misread the provisions envisaged under Section 23 (a) and (b) of the Act wherein the word 'owner' has been used but that cannot be construed synonymous to 'landlord' as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act, word 'landlord' has been defined as a person, who for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any accommodation, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the accommodation were let to a tenant and includes every person not being a tenant who from time to time derives title under a landlord. It seems that in every case it is not necessary that landlord should be owner of the property, but where the question of eviction of an accommodation in special proceedings as envisaged under Section 23 (a) (b) arises, the ownership of the property should be proved so as to justify need for eviction under such proceedings. No doubt, title to the property and ownership of the property becomes two different situations in so far as tenanted accommodation is concerned. Obviously tenant is estopped to challenge title of the property, but not the ownership of it. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 embodies the principle of estoppel arising from the contract of tenancy. It is based upon a healthy and statutory principle of law and justice that a tenant who could not have got possession but for his contract of tenancy admitting the right of the landlord, should not be allowed to launch his landlord in some inequitable situation taking undue advantage of the possession that he got and any probable defect in