A.R. Tiwari, J. Infecundity and infelicity in two Courts below have impleaded the plaintiffs to prefer this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (For short 'the Code'), claiming subversion of the impugned decree and urging eviction on the grounds specified in section 12(1)(f) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'),

2. The appeal is thus, directed against the judgment and decree, rendered by the Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore on 2.4.85 in C.R.A. No. 3-A/84, in affirmance of the judgment and decree passed by the Second Civil Judge class I1nd Indore on 27.10.80 in C.O,S. No.4-N73.

3. Admission was secured on the under-noted substantial question of law –

"Whether on the fads and in the circumstances of the case, the Court below erred in law in holding that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a case for eviction on the ground specified in sections 12(1)(f) 'and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.?"

4. Adumbrated in brief, the facts are that the suit-House No. 144, Jawahar Marg, Indore was owned by Abdul Rashid. He was recorded as an owner in the records of the Municipal Corporation, Indore. Vide sale-deed dated 2.7.68 marked as Ex. pm-A, Abdul Rashid sold this house to Amarnath and Brij Kumar. The respondent -defendant executed a rent-note dated 27.9.71 marked as Ex. P/2-C evidencing that he became the tenant of these purchasers effective from 26.9.71. The accommodation consisting of one shop and room behind it was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 101/- from the aforesaid purchasers for the non-residential purposes i.e. for tailoring shop. After purchase, the house was mutated in the name of Amarnath and Brij Kumar as per the document marked as Ex.P/9-A. Later, the landlord of the respondent - tenant transferred this house to the appellants by a registered sale-deed, marked as Ex. P/7-A, on 18.11.71. This sale -deed contains a recital that the tenant had been asked to accept the purchasers as his new landlord. A notice marked as Ex. P/2 was forwarded by the appellant to the respondent on 10.7.72 on 19.1.73 the appellant filed the suit against the respondent for eviction on the grounds specified in section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the Act and also claimed from 18.11.71 the rent and mesne-profits. at the rate of Rs. 101/- per month. The respondent-tenant denied the contentions and disclaimed the title of the appellant the ground that the aforesaid Amamath and Brij Kumar themselves had no such title to convey it. It was caegorically asserted that the real owner was Smt. Munavvar Begum, the mother of the respondent and she had intended that the respondent shall be the owner of this house. It was pleaded that Abdul Rashid was not the real owner and he was the Benamidar for Munavvar Begum and the respondent. It was, therefore, asserted that the respondent was in occupation of the house as owners thereof. The derivative title of appellants was denied on the ground that sellers, who were accepted as landlords-owners on execution of rent-note, themselves had no title. The grounds of eviction were also disputed. The mother of the respondent Smt. Munavvar Begum filed an application under O.32, R.15 of the Code in the trial Court un 20.2.72 for appointing her as guardian- ad-litem of the defendant-respondent on the ground that the respondent-her son-was mentally infirm due to deafness and dumbness and was thus, incapable of protection his interest. After recording of evidence on this aspect, the trial Court rejected this plea, and held that the respondent was capable of forming rational judgment and knew the difference between good and bad, and as such was capable of protecting his interests. This order of the trial Court was challenged in this Court in Civil Revision No, 478/74. The revision was, however, dismissed by order dated 6.3.75 and the order of the trial Court was uphold.

5. It is seen that the trial Court framed a number of issues. Some of