A change of user of the suit premises by a tenant will only be actionable under Section 12 (1) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 if it is inconsistent with the purpose for which the tenancy was created and prejudicially affects the landlord's interest. A denial of the landlord's title by a tenant will only constitute a disclaimer of title, providing a ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, if it is clear and unequivocal.

( 1 ) THE defendant / tenant has come up in appeal aggrieved by the judgments and decree of the lower appellate court directing his ejectment on the ground available to the plaintiff/landlord under S. 12 (1) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short ).

( 2 ) THE lower appellate Court has held that the defendant/appellant has by commencing business activity relating to loudspeakers and battery charging in addition to watch making has done an act inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy and has also by denying the title of the plaintiff/ landlord, done an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interests of the landlord. Though the trial court had decreed the suit under S. 12 (1) (a) of the Act also, but the lower appellate court has reversed the finding as to availability of that ground for ejectment by holding that there was a dispute as to rate of rent and also as to the person or persons to whom the rent was payable within the meaning of S. 13 (2) and (3) of the Act which dispute having not been decided by a provisional order, the operation of S. 13 was arrested and the decree for ejectment under S. 12 (1) (a) of the Act could not have been passed. That finding has not been challenged. In the succeeding paras the facts relevant only to S. 12 (1) (c) of the Act, therefore shall be noticed.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the defendant had acquired the suit premises for watch making alone. According to the defendant the purpose of the tenancy was watch making as also loud speakers repairing which activities were still being carried on in the suit premises. According to the plaintiff suit accommodation had fallen to his share in a mutual partition between himself and his father in the year 1964 whereafter the defendant had attorned to him and was his tenant. The defendant in his written statement denying the title of the plaintiff submitted that the suit accommodation was still owned by the father of the plaintiff from whom he had acquired the premises on tenancy in the year 1962. The pleadings also raised a dispute as to rate of rent whether it was Rs. 13/- or Rs. 10/- per month.

( 4 ) VIDE order dated 12-2-90 the appeal was admitted for hearing parties on the following two substantial questions of law. (1) Whether the courts below have illegally held 'change of user' of the suit accommodation by the tenant/appellant in view of law laid down in Gurdial Batra (AIR 1989 SC 1841) (2) Whether the vague denial of the title of the plaintiff does not amount to disclaimer of title by the defendant in view of law laid down in Kundanlal (1989 MPRCJ 111 ).

( 5 ) AT the hearing on a prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant parties have been heard on the additional question as to whether the lower appellate Court could have supported the decree for ejectment on the ground of disclaimer of title, the grounds on which the trial court had not passed a decree and as to which neither a cross-objection nor a cross-appeal was preferred by the plaintiff/ respondent. Question No. (1) :

( 6 ) THE ground for ejectment contemplated by S. 12 (1) (c) of the Act is as under :-"12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely, (a) and (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (c) that the tenant or any person residing with him has created a nuisance or has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord therein : provided that the use by a tenant of a portion of the accommodation as h