JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/2006 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/1997 whereby the appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree granted under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), but, decreed the suit on the ground of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant/defendant and also against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking decree of ejectment on the grounds that they were his tenants and not paid rent since October, 1994 and, therefore, they were in arrears of rent since October, 1994 to 1997 and further that they illegally constructed the toilet without consent of the respondent/plaintiff. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 21-A/1997 in the Court of Civil Judge Class II Seoni Malwa.

3. The plaintiff claimed himself to be the landlord of the house No. 4 situated at Ward No. 8, Seoni Malwa in which father of the appellant namely Mangilal used to reside as a tenant for last more than 20 years on a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. Mangilal died in 1994 and after his death, appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 became the tenant of the said house in question.

4. Written statement was filed by the appellant/defendant disputing the title of the plaintiff over the house in question and claiming that earlier one Smt. Leela Bai also claimed ownership over the said house and gave notice to the father of the appellant on 02.06.1972, but, his father refused to pay rent to Smt. Leela Bai and thereafter she did not file any suit and not initiated any further proceeding against the father of the appellant or against other defendants and as such they claimed that they acquired the title in respect of the suit house by virtue of adverse possession and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation.

5. The trial court, after recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit on 24.12.2003 on the ground of arrears of rent of Rs. 1500/-.

6. The appeal was preferred by the appellant against the said judgment and decree and also deposited the arrears of rent. During the pendency of appeal, the appellant filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional documents on record, under Order 41 Rule 25 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for framing of additional issues, under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and under Order 41 Rule 20 of CPC saying that Smt. Saroj Bai is the daughter of original tenant Mangilal and, therefore, she is also a necessary party. The appellant also filed an application under Section 35 of the STAMP ACT on the ground that the document i.e. sale deed, on the basis of which the respondent No. 1 is claiming ownership over the suits house, was not a registered document, therefore, as per the provisions of the Act the said document be impounded.

7. The appellate court, while deciding the appeal, considered all the IAs and decided the same. The appellate court finally allowed the appeal in part setting aside the judgment and decree passed on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, but decreed the suit granting decree of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 directing ejectment of the appellant/defendant from the suit house and denied his title as he failed to prove that the plaintiff was not the owner and landlord of the suit house.

8. The second appeal has been preferred by the appellan