The central legal point established in the judgment is that a clear and unequivocal denial of landlord's title by the tenant can warrant eviction under section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

P.K. Jaiswal, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 1-1-2002 passed by First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2001, whereby learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 11-12-2000 passed by First Civil Judge, Class II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 47-A/98.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction under Clause (c) (0 (h) and (k) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of M.P.. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act") on the ground that plaintiff was owner of the suit shop and defendant was tenant at the rate of Rs. 85/- per month. The plaintiff issued notice dated 10-1-1987 and terminated the tenancy with effect from 31-1-1987. In reply to legal notice defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and as such plaintiff claimed decree for ejectment under section 12(1)(c) of the Act.

3. The defendant in his written statement denied the averments made in the plaint. In para 1 of the written statement defendant stated that he was not the tenant of plaintiff and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. In paras 2 and 4 of the written statement he denied the title of the plaintiff and stated that plaintiff cannot claim decree on the ground of disclaimer of title. In para 10 he further denied the title and stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Plaintiff Madan Mohan Agarwal (P.W. I) in his deposition stated that suit premises owned by him. He filed Ex. P. 10 Municipal Assessment Register in which his name was recorded as owner of the suit shop. Ex. P.11, P. 12, P. 13 and P. 14 are receipt and challan by which property tax was deposited by him time to time in the Municipal Council. He further stated that Ex. P.15, P.16, P.17, P.18 and P.19 were the rent receipts issued by the plaintiff in his name to the defendant which were duly signed by him. The defendant earlier never raised any objection regarding ownership of the plaintiff. Plaintiff witness Ram Kishan (P.W. 2) in his cross-examination stated that in the year 1965 suit shop was given on rent to the defendant Meenamal Jain. He further stated that in family partition deed in the year 1969 the suit shop was given to the plaintiff. The said partition deed was registered in the year 1972 and thus plaintiff became the owner of the suit shop and from 1980 plaintiff is taking rent from the defendant. Defendant Meenamal (D.W.I) in his deposition stated that he is tenant of the suit premises from last 34 years and suit shop was given to him on rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- by the father of plaintiff Ramkishan. In 1980 the rent was enhanced from Rs. 45/- to Rs. 60/- and from 1984-85 he is paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 85 per month. He further admitted that P. 15, P.16, P.17 and P.18 are the rent receipt issued in the name of plaintiff Madan Mohan and Ex. P. 19 is the rent receipt given by the plaintiff Madan Mohan. Ex. P.20 and P.21 are the rent receipt signed by the plaintiff and plaintiff name was also shown as owner of the premises. From the above facts the trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff is owner and landlord of the suit premises and defendant is tenant at the rate of Rs. 85/- per month. The plaintiff vide Ex. P.5 issued notice dated 10-1-1987 by which he terminated the tenancy from 31-1-1987. Ex. P.6 is the postal receipt. Ex. P.7 is acknowledgment by which defendants received the notice. Ex. P.8 is reply to the notice, by which defendants denied the title and stated that no relationship exists between the plaintiff and defendant as a landlord and tenant. The defendant in his written statement further stated that there does not exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between him and plaintiff. During pendency of the suit, defendant by way of amendment withdrew the averment regard