1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28/6/2011 passed by District Judge, Indore in M.A.No.12/11 and 11/2011 whereby the order dated 25/3/2011 passed by Rent Controlling Authority (in short “R.C.A.”), Indore in Execution case No.1/10 whereby upon the objections filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, learned R.C.A. directed that parties should get their rights decided from the Civil Court, was set aside and objections filed by the appellant were also dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

2. This appeal has been filed under section 100 CPC while the order was passed by the R.C.A. against which appeal was filed under section 31 of Accommodation Control Act against which appeal is provided under section 32 of Accommodation Control Act. Both the parties agree that appeal be treated as appeal u/s 32 of the Accommodation Control Act and be decided.

3. Short facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed an eviction petition on 15/10/01 against respondent No.2 u/s 23-A of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act alleging that suit property is a house bearing House No.14 situated at Haathi Pala Main Road, Indore measuring 35 x 12 totalling 420 sq.ft.. It was alleged that suit property belongs to Mohd. Hussain S/o Roshan Mohammad, who is residing at 223 Shrinagar Extension, Indore. It was alleged that suit property was in occupation of respondent No.2 as tenant. It was alleged that vide gift deed dated 29/2/2000, Mohd. Hussain gifted the same to respondent No.1. It was alleged that tenancy of respondent No.2 with Mohd. Hussain was for Rs.500/- per month, therefore after the gift deed, respondent No.2 has become the tenant of respondent No.1. It was alleged that respondent No.1 requires the suit accommodation bonafidely for the need of her sons for which respondent No.1 is having no alternative accommodation. It was alleged that inspite of notice dated 31/7/2001, neither suit accommodation was vacated nor rent was deposited w.e.f. 1/3/2000, therefore order of eviction be passed. After obtaining leave to defend, respondent No.2 contested the petition on various grounds and prayed that eviction petition filed by respondent No.1 be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, vide order dated 25/3/2008 the order of eviction was passed against respondent No.2, against which a Revision petition was filed by respondent No.2 before this Court which was numbered as C.R.190/08 and was dismissed vide order dated 10/8/2010. While dismissing the Revision petition, this Court also granted time to vacate the suit accommodation on or before 30/11/2010. Thereafter on 3/12/2010 objections were filed by the appellant who is real brother of respondent No.1, under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC wherein it was alleged that Shobhagyamal Modi was father of appellant and respondent No.2. It was alleged that Shobhagyamal Modi was owner of the suit property and after his death the rights have vested in the appellant. It was alleged that since appellant is in occupation of the suit accommodation and is carrying on his business, therefore order of eviction is not binding on the appellant. It was prayed that application/objections filed by the appellant be allowed and order of eviction be set aside. Reply was filed by the respondent No.1 wherein objections raised by the appellant were denied. It was prayed that objections be dismissed. After holding a summary enquiry learned Court below vide order dated 25/3/2011 held that objections raised by the appellant relate to the title which can be determined only by the civil Court and R.C.A. is having no jurisdiction to decide the same, therefore it was directed to get the question decided from the civil Court and execution proceedings were stayed, against which both the parties i.e. appellant and respondent No.1 preferred an appeal which were numbered as 11/2011 and 12/2011 and by the impugned judgment both the appeals were dismissed holding that findings of R.C.A. that question should be got d