( 1. ) THE appellant/defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31. 10. 06 passed by II Addl. District Judge (Fast Track)Katni in Civil Regular- Appeal No. 41-A/06, affirming the judgment and decree dated 17. 7. 06 passed by II Civil Judge Class-II, Katni in Civil Original Suit No. 12-A/2000, decreeing the suit of the respondent for eviction against him, has filed this appeal.

( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondent herein filed the suit for eviction against the appellant/defendant with respect of tenanted premises- the part of House No. 278 described in the plaint and the annexed map, situated in Subhash Ward, Katni. As per averments of the plaint, such suit was filed on the grounds available under section 12 (l) (a), 12

(l) (c), 12 (l) (e) and 12 (l) (h)of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the arrears of rent, disclaimer of title, bonafide genuine requirement of the disputed accommodation for residence of respondents family, and also on the ground that same being in dilapidated condition is required bonafidely for the purpose of substantial addition and alteration which could not be carried out without vacating the premises otherwise it may cause an unhappy incident. As per other averments of the plaint, the appellant is tenant of the respondent in the aforesaid residential premises @ of Rs. 200/- per month.

( 3. ) IN the written statement of the appellant, the relationship of landlord and tenant with respondent is denied. It is stated that the appellant was inducted as tenant in such premises by the earlier landlord Shri Ramavtar Jaiswal and not by the respondent. Subsequent to death of said Ramavtar, he neither attorn his tenancy nor paid any rent to the respondent for the accommodation by deeming him to be his landlord. The aforesaid grounds of eviction are also disputed and denied. In such premises, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. It is noted that the aforesaid ground of eviction under section 12 (1) (c) regarding disclaimer of title was not taken at the initial stage of the suit but after filing the written statement, by way of amendment, such ground was taken by the respondent in his plaint. It also appears from the pleadings of the parties that in pendency of the suit, some of the accommodation had got vacated by the respondent for which, by way of amendment, appellant pleaded in his written statement the availability of alternative accommodation with the respondent for his alleged need. "while"other hand, the appellant has also put forth the pleadings regarding explanation of such alleged alternative accommodation stating that despite such accommodation his need is still in existence.

( 4. ) AFTER casting the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, the trial court by holding tile relationship of the landlord and tenant between the respondent and the appellant decreed the suit for eviction on all the aforesaid grounds. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal under section 96 of the cpc. After extending the opportunity of hearing, on consideration, by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appeal was dismissed, on which, the appellant has come forward to this court with this appeal.

( 5. ) SHRI A. K. Jain, learned counsel of the appellant, by referring the pleadings, evidence and the exhibited documents on record, said that in the available circumstances, the respondent has failed to prove the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. As such, the appellant was inducted by the then landlord Ramavtar and appellant never attorn his tenancy in favour of the respondent at any point of time. Mere on the basis of a thumb impression on the rent receipts (Ex. P/2,p/3 and P/4), it could not be deemed that the tenancy has been attorned by the appellant in favour of the respondent. He further said that the respondent has claimed the right of landlord on the