1. This is plaintiff second appeal whose suit has been dismissed by learned first appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court decreeing his suit.

2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that a suit for eviction on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant on the grounds envisaged under section 12 (1) (a) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the original defendant/tenant, Baldu, who has died during the pendency of this second appeal and his LRs have been brought on record as respondents arraying them as defendants.

3. Learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties found both the grounds to be proved and decreed the suit on both counts. The appeal which was filed by defendant Baldu has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and the suit of the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed.

4. In this manner this second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

5. This Court on 28.6.1990 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial question of law :-

"Whether the lower Appellate Court has acted contrary to Exihibit P-7, which is a public document?

6. The contention of Shri Sanjay Sarvate, learned counsel for the appellant is that property in question was purchased by plaintiff in auction sale in which the defendant was residing and who was later on inducted as tenant by the plaintiff. The sale certificate is Exihibit P-l0 . By inviting my attention to the document of warrant of possession (Exhibit P-6) issued by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Khurai dated 12.1.1972 it has been submitted that this warrant of possession, was issued against defendant Baldu who was residing in the suit premises and thereafter the possession of the property in question was also handed over to the auction purchaser/plaintiff and this has been so embodied on the rear side of document of warrant of possession (Exhibit P-6). The receipt of possession (Exhibit P-7) is a document in consequence to Exhibit P-6. Learned counsel submits that since Exhibit P-7 is the certified copy of public document, mere production of it would be sufficient proof of public document in terms of section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Act"). In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision Balku and others v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 Oudh 183.

7. On the other hand, Shri Amod Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/defendants argued in support of the impugned judgment.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed and the case is required to be sent back to the learned first Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits.

Regarding Substantial Question of Law

9. On bare perusal of the judgment of learned First Appellate Court (Para11 onwards) it is gathered that learned first Appellate Court has held that possession of the suit property was given to the plaintiff/appellant in pursuance to possession receipt, Exhibit P-7, is not proved since the said document is not a public document and therefore, in these circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have summoned the file of court having the original possession receipt in it and, therefore, since the Exhibit P-7 is not a certified copy of public document, its mere production would not be sufficient in order to prove the factum of delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff who was an auction purchaser.

10. On the other hand, Shri Amod Gupta, learned counsel for respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.

12. On bare perusal of the possession receipt Exhibit P-7 this Court finds that it is in consequence to the warrant of possession (Exhibit P-6)