( 1. ) THE defendant tenant has preferred this Letters Patent appeal against the decree for eviction passed against him by a single Bench of this Court by reversing the decrees of the Courts below under section 12 (1) (c) and (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on the grounds of disclaimer of title of the landlord and bona fide need of the landlord of the suit accommodation for residence.

( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that one Maryambai owned the suit house and she was the landlady of the defendant Meerkhan. The defendant is occupying the ground floor of the suit house on a monthly rent of Rs. 8, the tenancy commencing on the 20th of each English calendar month. She filed Civil suit No. 110 /60 for eviction of the defendant but the suit was dismissed on 20-9- 61. Appeal No. 84-A/61 preferred against that decree was also dismissed. She subsequently filed another Civil Suit No. 107-A/64 for eviction of the defendant which was also dismissed on 6-1-65. The plaintiff Kutub Ali is nephew of Mariyambai and he is living with her and also looking after the business of her husband Fakhruddin, who is dead. The plaintiff is legal heir of Mariyambai. By registered sale-deed 12-4-68 Mariyambai purported to sell the suit house for a consideration of Rs. 1500 Even thereafter she received rents of April, May and June 1968 sent by the defendant by money order, but she did not receive rents of July and August 1968. On 30-7-68 the plaintiff and Mariyambai gave a joint notice to the defendant directing him to pay rent to the plaintiff in view of the sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff then by his notice dated 14-5-69 terminated the tenancy and demanded arrears of rent. The defendant in his reply dated 20-5-69 denied the title of the plaintiff and refused to pay any rent to him saying that the sale-deed is not genuine and brought into existence for the purpose of evicting him from the suit house. The plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit on 2-9-69 claiming eviction of the defendant on the grounds of disclaimer of his title and bona fide need for his residence.

( 3. ) THE plaintiffs case is that in view of the sale-deed executed in his favour by Mariyambai on 12-4-69 he is the owner and landlord of the defendant. He purchased the suit house for his residence as at present he is living as a tenant of Mariyambai and he has no other house of his own in the town. Mariyambai had sent notice to the defendant to attorn tenancy in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant has. been refusing to recognise him as his landlord. Therefore, his tenancy has been terminated and eviction is sought under section 12 (1) (c) and (e) of the Act. The defendant in his written statement admitted that he is a tenant of Mariyambai. However, he submitted that the sale-deed in question is not a genuine one and has been brought into existence mala fide only for the purpose of evicting him. The defendant never recognised the plaintiffs title and he is not disentitled to challenge derivative title of the plaintiff. Mariyambai since the year 1960 has been trying to evict the defendant from the suit house and she filed 2 suits which were dismissed. Therefore, she has deviced a novel procedure to eject the defendant by bringing into existence a sham and bogus sale deed in favour of her nephew. The plaintiff has been living with mariyambai and he is managing her property and business. The plaintiff has no need of the suit house for his residence. The suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

( 4. ) THE learned trial Judge found the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff to be genuine but it was brought about with the mala fide intention only for the purpose of this suit for evicting the defendant and so no effect can be given to it. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled to evict the defendant on the grounds of disclaimer of title under section 12 (c) of the Act. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is living as a tenant of Mariyambai, on the other ha