1. This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No.3-A/2008 by the Ist Additional District Judge, Shahdol, whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1999 passed in Civil Suit No.17-A/1987 by the Civil Judge Class II, Budhar, has been reversed and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :

“(i) Whether the first appellate Court has committed error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of the appellants against the respondents on the grounds enumerated under section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?

(ii) Whether the appellate Court has appreciated the evidence led by the parties contrary to the settled proposition of law?”

2. The appellant-plaintiff landlord filed a suit against the respondent-original defendant seeking a decree of eviction, on the ground of section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity). It was contended that admittedly the respondent-defendant was the tenant of the original appellant-plantiff. The respondent-defendant has though taken the house for the purpose of residence, but after putting a lock on the same, he has shifted to Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and was not using it right from the year 1972. When a notice demanding vacation of the house after termination of the tenancy was issued, a reply was sent stating that the appellant-plaintiff was not the landlord, in fact, an agreement was got executed between a coparcener of the joint Hindu family by the respondent-defendant on 26.8.1981 for the purpose of sale of the said house, therefore, original plaintiffs were not entitled to grant of a decree of eviction.

3. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant on the pleas that there was a family dispute in between the original plaintiff and other coparceners of the joint Hindu family and since the demise premises fell in share of one of the coparcener, in fact, the respondent-tenant got an agreement executed for the sale of the demise premises to him. This fact was well within the knowledge of the original plaintiff and he was required to file a claim for partition of the joint Hindu family property which was not done. Ultimately, there was a family dispute which had gone upto the apex Court and, therefore, such a claim that the original plaintiff was the landlord of the respondent-tenant was not correct. It was, thus, contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The civil Court after framing of the issues recorded the evidence of the parties, reached to the conclusion that in fact, by disowning the landlordship of the original plaintiff, a ground for eviction of the tenant was made out and, therefore, the suit was decreed in favour of the original plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the civil Court, the respondent-defendant preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court, which after consideration of the evidence available on record, reached to the conclusion that the learned civil Court has erroneously granted the decree in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and allowed the appeal. Hence, this appeal is filed, which is admitted only on the aforesaid substantial question of law.

5. It is, vehemently, contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that evidence as available on record is required to be marshalled to see whether a ground under section 12(1)(c) of the Act was made out to grant a decree against the respondent-defendant or not. It is pointed out that in the plaint itself, this fact was categorically pleaded. When a notice was issued to the respondent-defendant, there was no dispute nor any claim with respect to the share by any of the member of the joint Hindu family. In fact, the agreement was got execuited o