The denial of derivative title by a tenant and the failure to pay or deposit rent can justify eviction under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

S.P. Khare, J.

1. These two second appeals under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code one by the tenant and the other by the landlord arise out of a common judgment of the first Appellate Court.

2. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court in S.A. No. 721 of 1998 at the time of admission of this appeal:-

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to deny the derivative title of the respondent No. 1 landlord in view of the fact that he had entered into a contract of sale of the suit property and had filed a suit for specific performance of contract which was not finally decided at the time of filing of the plaint as the appeal was pending?

2. Whether the ultimate decision rendered in the suit for specific performance of contract would justify the claim of the appellant that he had entered into a contract of sale of the suit property and the finding recorded therein would be res judicata in the suit as against the respondent No. 1 who derived the title from the previous owner against whom the suit for specific performance was not decided?

3. Whether, even otherwise, the denial of the derivative title would amount to disclaimer of title within the meaning of Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act? (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act)

The following substantial question of law was formulated in S.A. No. 743 of 1998:-

Whether the finding of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court that the defendant is not the tenant-of the plaintiff in respect of 14' x 12' land on the eastern side, is perverse?

3. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred above are that Chandra Prakash Jha was owner of a house in Masjid Ward, Bina, District Sagar and Defendant Saligram was his tenant in a portion of this house at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. This tenancy was created in or about the year 1960. Plaintiff Gyanchand purchased this house from Chandra Prakash Jha by registered sale-deeds dated 22-1-1980 and 4-10-1980. In the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff the defendant denied his title and set up the title in himself. According to the plaintiff 12' x 14' land in front of the house, on the eastern side, was a portion of the house 61' x 14', which had been let out to the defendant by the original owner. The defendant pleaded that this 12' x 14' land was the Nazul land and it was in his occupation from the year 1960 but in the year 1980 he was granted lease of this land by the State. Regarding the remaining house of 14' x 50' the defendant's plea was that there was an agreement of sale by the original owner in his favour and he had filed a suit for specific performance of contract against him. That suit ultimately failed on 24-4-1986, so far as the relief of execution of the registered sale-deed in his favour is concerned. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed on 15-12-1989. According to the defendant the denial of derivative title of the plaintiff on that basis was bona fide. It is also note-worthy that the defendant did not deposit any rent in the Court as required by Section 13(1) of the Act and, therefore, his "defence against eviction" was struck out by the trial Court under Section 13(6) of the Act by order dated 28-10-1986, i.e. after the decision in the suit for specific performance of contract. The suit for eviction was decreed by the trial Court in respect of the portion 14' x 50' under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act but in respect of the remaining portion on the eastern side it was held that it was Nazul land and was not included in the tenancy of the defendant and for which he was granted Patta by the State on 22-3-1980 and the suit in respect of that area was dismissed. In appeal by both the sides the decree as passed by the trial Court has been affirmed.

4. At the stage of the first appeal the defendant maintained his stand that he himself is owner of the 14' x 50' portion and the plaintiff has no title to that portion.

S. A. No. 721 of 1998:

5. There is a concurrent fin