( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure filed by appellant-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 17-11-1973 passed by the and Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil appeal. No. 25 A of 1973.

( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that Smt. Manorama Bahadur (appellant plaintiff No. 1) and her daughter Mrs Pramila Daniel (original appellant-plaintiff No. 2), who having died during the pendency of this appeal was substituted by her legal representatives, now appellants 2 (a) to 2 (e) had filed the present suit against the respondent for his ejectment from the suit accommodation (shown in red colour in the plaint map as a portion of house No. 623 located in West Ghamapur in Jabalpur City) on the ground under section 12 (1) (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) that the accommodation was required bona fide by Pramila (original plaintiff No. 2) as landlady for occupation as a residence for herself and also for the members of her family, namely, her husband and children and she has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation of her own in her occupation in the city of Jabalpur. The case, thus, set up in the plaint was that Pramila (original plaintiff No. 2) was the owner of the house of which the suit accommodation is a part by virtue of a will executed in her favour by her maternal grand-father. Though Manorma (plaintiff No. 1) was also joined as co-plaintiff but in the plaint she was not alleged to be owner of the suit accommodation. All that was said about her was that she was collecting rent on behalf of her daughter. Therefore, the suit was clearly on the basis that pramila (original plaintiff No. 2) was the owner and landlady of the suit accommodation and required the same bona fide for occupation as residence for herself and her family members. The respondent-defendant contested the suit by raising various pleas and denying the claim of Pramila (original plaintiff No 2) that she required the suit accommodation bona fide for the residence of herself and her family members It was also alleged that the notice (Ex. P-1) terminating the tenancy was invalid. It was also further pleaded that Pramila (original plaintiff No. 2) was not the owner of the house, but her mother manorama (plaintiff No. 1) and, therefore, the suit must fail on that count as well.

( 3. ) THE trial Court held both the plaintiffs as land-ladies, but it was of opinion that Pramila (original plaintiff No. 2) was not the owner or even a co-owner of the suit house as the house belonged to Manorama (plaintiff No. 1), her brothers and sisters. Therefore, it could not be got vacated for residential need of Pramila (original plaintiff No. 2 ). It was further held that after the dismissal of the suit at one stage in default, Manorama (plaintiff No. accepted rent from respondent defendant which amounted to waiver of quit-notice and creation of a fresh tenancy In view of these findings, the first court dismissed the suit. An appeal preferred by plaintiffs 1 and 2 was also dismissed. That Court also while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court held that Pramila (original plaintiff No 2) was not the owner and landlady of the suit accommodation. Hence, this second appeal was filed by both the plaintiffs.

( 4. ) HAVING heard learned counsel of the parties, I am of opinion that this appeal has no force and it must be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant plaintiffs submitted that the lower appellate Court acted illegally in dismissing the suit on the basis that it has not been proved that pramila (original plaintiff No 2) was the owner and landlady of the suit accommodation. According to the learned counsel the finding with regard to the ownership was wholly irrelevant in a tenancy suit. The finding of the lower appellate Court in that regard was also tried to be assailed on the basis that rent receipts (Exs. P-7 to P-11) show the name