The denial of derivative title by the tenant must be justifiable and based on sufficient reasoning, and the tenant's obligation to recognize the purchaser as the landlord is emphasized.

A.K. Mishra, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction on the ground under Section 12 (1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant on the allegations that the defendant was occupying the suit accommodation on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The plaintiff required the suit accommodation for bonafide requirement of residence of her sons. She was not possessing any other accommodation within the limits of Municipal Council, Guna. She also required the suit accommodation for reconstruction which could not be done without vacating the same. The defendant was not paying the rent and rent was in arrears. The defendant has denied tenancy as well as ownership of the plaintiff. The defendant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 13,415/-. Hence ejectment was sought on the ground contemplated in Section 12 (1) (c) and (h) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

3. The defendant in his written statement took the plea that he was inducted as a tenant of Gurudayal Shrivastava, the vendor of the plaintiff. However, he was occupying the accommodation on rent at the rate of Rs. 150/-and not at the rate of Rs. 400/-. It was denied that the plaintiff has purchased the suit accommodation and tenancy was also denied. It was further pleaded that he did not receive any intimation from Gurudayal Shrivastava regarding the sale of the house. He had continued to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- to Gurudayal Shrivastava. In 1998 Gurudayal Shrivastava stopped accepting the rent, hence money order was sent, but money was not received. The plaintiff is residing in another house situated in front of the disputed house. He is not in arrears of rent. In reply Paragraph 11, it was alleged that notice dated 9-11-1989 was not sent. Although the whole para was denied specifically it was averred that on the basis of notice the plaintiff was preparing a ground through Gurudayal Shrivastava so that any how the house is got vacated. It was contended that no such notice was received by the defendant.

4. On trial, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff without any justification. Tenancy and ownership were established. Notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. Other evidence was also taken into consideration and the decree on the ground of denial of title under Section 12 (1) (c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was passed.

5. An appeal was taken by the defendant before the lower Appellate Court, which stands dismissed. Hence the present second appeal before this Court by the defendant. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether challenge by tenant to derivative title of landlord decree under Section 12 (1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act could be passed in view of the judgment of the Division Bench reported in the case of Mirkhan Nathne Khan Vs. Kutub Ali Tayab Ali (1979 MPLJ 155)?"

6. Learned counsel Shri K.K. Lahoti with Shri D.D. Bansal, appearing for the appellant has urged that it is a case where the denial of title was for want of knowledge of the purchase of the house by the plaintiff from the original landlord. Tenancy has been admitted though rate of rent has been disputed. Thus, no decree under Section 12 (1) (c) for denial of derivative title could be passed.

7. Shri H.D. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, has taken this Court through the evidence and various documents on record so as to suggest that the conduct of the defendant in denying the ownership as well as tenancy with the plaintiff is wholly untenable and unjustifiable. He pointed out para 15 of the deposition of the defendant himself in which the defendant has admitted that he had gone to pay the ren