G.P. Singh, J.

This is an appeal by a tenant against whom a decree for eviction has been passed under section 12(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act on the ground that prior to the institution of the suit the tenant denied the title of the landlord and thus committed an act which was likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant merely denied the derivative title of the plaintiff which did not amount to denial of the landlord's title, that mere denial of title cannot be a ground for eviction under section 12(1)(c), and that in the present case it has not been established nor has it been pleaded that the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's title is likely to affect him adversely or substantially, therefore, no decree for eviction could be passed on the ground mentioned in section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Section 12(1)(c) of the Act reads as follows:

12(1)(c) that the tenant or any person residing with him has created a nuisance or has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord therein.

This section was construed by A. P. Sen J. in Gulam Mohammad v. Poonam Chand 1969 M P L T 8437 and it was held that the third clause of section 12(1)(c) which reads "has done any act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord", is wide enough to include acts of denial of the landlord's title. This view was confirmed by a Division Bench in Pandit Ramjilal v. Vijai Kumar 1970 M P L J 50. In Gulam Mohammad's case A. P. Sen J. also observed that "a denial of the landlord's title undoubtedly affects him adversely, and it also affects him substantially". But by reading the case as a whole I do not think that the learned Judge meant to hold that every denial of landlord's title is an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord. Take a case where a tenant denies the title of the landlord under a mistake and soon thereafter having discovered his mistake intimates the landlord that his earlier denial of the title was under a mistake and that he accepts him as his landlord. Take another case where the tenant bona fide, to protect his interest, refuses to recognise any one of the rival heirs of the original landlord as his landlord until their rival claims are settled or decided. I do not think that in the examples that I have given it would be possible to say that the denial of title is such which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord. The true legal position appears to be that in every case it will have to be seen whether in the particular facts of that case denial of title by the tenant is such that it is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord.

The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant merely denied the derivative title of the plaintiff is not factually correct. It is now no longer in dispute that the defendant was let in as a tenant by one Abdul Gani who was originally the owner of the accommodation. Abdul Gani sold the house to the plaintiff on August 14, 1968. On August 21, 1968, the defendant issued a notice addressed to Pritamsingh, who is husband of the plaintiff, and to one Jumma. In that notice the defendant stated that he was tenant of Jumma who had entered into an agreement with him for selling the house for Rs. 9,000. It was also stated therein that Jumma had promised to execute the sale-deed by Diwali 1968. It was further stated that Pritamsingh and Jumma were called upon to execute and register a sale-deed in favour of the defendant, otherwise a suit would be instituted against them for that purpose. It will be seen that in this notice the defendant set up a title in Jumma who, as is now ac