The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of attornment of tenancy, acknowledgment of landlord's title by the tenant, and the burden of proof on the defendant to challenge the derivative title of the plaintiff for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Rohit Arya, J.

1. This appeal by plaintiff under section 100 CPC is directed against the reversing judgment and decree dated 08/05/2003 passed in civil appeal No.90A/2002 dismissing the suit seeking eviction on the grounds of "arrears of rent" under section 12(1)(a) since August, 1994 at the rate of Rs.140/- per month till April, 1995 and "bona fide need" under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (For short 'the 1961 Act"). The trial Court vide judgment dated 18/09/2002 passed in civil suit No.91A/1995 has decreed the suit under section 12(1)(f) of the 1961 Act and also awarded damages at the rate of Rs.140/- per month till eviction.

2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 28/04/2004 has framed the following substantial questions of law:

"(i) Whether learned lower appellate Court was justified in holding that sale deed in favour of plaintiff appears to be sham when no such pleading was raised and proved by the defendant and after attorning in favour of the plaintiff such plea was not available to the defendant and the suit could not be dismissed on this ground?

(ii) Whether the courts below have erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground of section 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for want of funds and the findings negative the plea of bona fide need is perverse?"

And modified the second question of law vide order dated 06/12/2016.

(ii) Whether the courts below have erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground of section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for want of funds and the findings negative the plea of bona fide need is perverse?"

3. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit against defendant/respondent/tenant for eviction on the grounds of "arrears of rent" 12(1)(a) and "bona fide need" under section 12(1)(f) of the 1961 Act inter alia contending that the shop situated at Loha Bazar, Ward No.13, Vidisha (For short, 'the suit shop') is of his ownership, having purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 29/06/1993. By a notice dated 15/07/1993 (exhibit P/1), served upon the defendant, the plaintiff made known the defendant that suit shop has been purchased by him and now the defendant has become his tenant in the suit shop and, therefore, called upon defendant to pay arrears of rent from December,1992 to June, 1993 at the rate of Rs.140/- per month, total Rs.980/-. Thereafter, the defendant paid rent to the plaintiff and obtained receipts vide exhibits D/2 and D/3. The plaintiff intended to run a hardware business in the suit shop and he did not have any suitable accommodation for the said purpose. Since August, 1994, the defendant had not paid rent. The plaintiff by registered notice dated 26/12/1994 (exhibit P/5) terminated the tenancy from the midnight of 28/02/1995 calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit shop and also pay the arrears of rent . Neither defendant paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit shop.

4. Defendant denied plaint averments inter alia contending that the plaintiff has a big Hindu joint family having number of houses and shops in Vidisha. Plaintiff does not reside at Vidisha as his father is in service at Ratlam. Plaintiff is a student. He has no bona fide requirement of the suit shop for running the business. The registered sale deed dated 29/06/1993 in favour of the plaintiff does not appear to be bona fide and the same has been executed for collateral purpose. With the aforesaid pleadings, suit was sought to be dismissed.

5. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence.

6. The trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record has answered issue No.1 related to "bona fide need" of the plaintiff in his favour as discussed in paragraphs 6 to 20 of the judgment. It has been found that the plaintiff has no other non-residential accommodation of his own within the vicini