N.K. Mody, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-12-2002 passed by Additional District Judge, District-Indore in Civil Suit No. 19-A/2002 whereby the suit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for eviction of the appellant was decreed u/s 12(1) (a),(c) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act"), the present appeal has been filed.

Short facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the real sisters and are daughters of one Thakurdas Chandani who filed a suit for eviction of appellant alleging that appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and is in arrears of rent with effect from 1-7-1996 which has not been paid in spite of demand. It was alleged that appellant has denied the title of respondents No. 1 and 2, therefore, on account of disclaimer of title respondents No. 1 and 2 are entitled to get the suit accommodation vacated. Further case of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was that the respondents No. 1 and 2 requires the suit accommodation for carrying on the business for themselves and members of their family bona fidely. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 is doing the business of manufacturing of Caster Wheels at Pune. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 wants to open a branch at Indore for which there is a consent of respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that for the purpose of opening the branch at Indore respondents No. 1 and 2 are not having any alternative accommodation of their own in the city of Indore. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the decree was prayed on account of arrears of rent, disclaimer of title and genuine requirement.

The suit was contested by the appellant on various grounds by denying the allegations made in the plaint. It was alleged that Thakurdas Chandani was the owner of the suit accommodation who let it out to Thakursingh who is respondent No. 3 herein vide rent note dated 20-11-1995 for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/- per month. Since respondent No. 1 was not in a position to run the health club for which the suit accommodation was taken on rent, therefore, respondent No. 3 vacated the suit accommodation and handed it over to the appellant. It was alleged that thereafter Thakurdas Chandani let out the suit accommodation to the appellant vide rent note dated 12-1-1996 is for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was alleged that appellant paid six months advance rent to Thakurdas Chandani in his life time which was upto 30-6-1996. Further case of appellant was that no notice of demand has been issued to the appellant. It was alleged that appellant has not disputed the title of the respondents No. 1 and 2 as successor of deceased Thakurdas Chandani. It was alleged that Thakurdas Chandani was having other legal representatives also including respondents No. 1 and 2, therefore, respondents No. 1 and 2 are not having the right to evict the appellant as they are not exclusive owner of the suit accommodation. It was denied that respondents No. 1 and 2 requires the suit accommodation for opening of branch of business of Caster Wheels. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit u/s 12(1)) (a)(c) and (f) of the Act, against which the present appeal has been filed.

Mr. G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel with Mr. D.S. Kale, counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court committed error in passing the decree against the appellant. It is submitted that the notice dated 13-2-1997 Ex.P/8 was issued by the respondents No. 1 and 2 to respondent No. 3, a copy of which was sent to appellant. It is submitted that in the said notice it was alleged that respondent No. 3 is tenant in the suit accommodation @ Rs. 7,000/- per month. It is submitted that since no demand notice was issued to appellant, therefore, no decree of eviction could have been passed agains