The main legal point established in the judgment is that a landlord's proof of ownership and bona fide requirement, along with the tenant's failure to substantially deny the landlord's title, justifies eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

ANAND PATHAK, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 100 CPC is being preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28/02/2004 passed by III Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 16/2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30/05/2002 passed by V Civil Judge Class-I in Civil Suit No. 121-A/2000 has been reversed and suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed. Precisely stated facts of the case for adjudication are that appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against M/s. Pipariya Enterprises through its partners (respondent No. 1 herein). It is stated in the plaint that respondent No. 1-defendant is a tenant in the shop owned by the appellant/plaintiff @ Rs. 450 per month. It is also stated that defendant executed the rent note on 28/03/1986 on behalf of other parties as a power of attorney holder. As per the submissions, defendant failed to pay the rent from 01/04/1991 inspite of the written notice dated 18/10/1991 therefore, it is further stated that the suit shop is required for the business of General Merchant/Cosmetic and appellant/plaintiff is not having any other suitable and alternative shop for this purpose. Appellant/plaintiff also stated in the plaint that he filed a suit against one tenant Bhagwan Das also and the said suit was decreed and after having possession of the shop, appellant/plaintiff started business in the name and style of Shivam Furniture and General Store, but that shop is not sufficient in space to carry on business therefore, he is not able to do his business in systematic manner and is not able to display his goods/products properly therefore, suit shop was required bona fide for his business.

2. Other pleading in respect of causing nuisance in the disputed shop was also raised by the plaintiff wherein defendant constructed the overhead water tank causing leakage and seepage causing nuisance. Plea of sub-letting the tenanted premise was also raised by the plaintiff besides other pleadings.

3. Respondent No. 3 remained ex parte since beginning whereas respondent No. 2 went ex parte at the time of evidence. Effectively suit was contested by respondent No. 1.

4. Defendant No. 1 submitted its written statement and denied the facts and pleading of the plaint. Defendant No. 1 denied execution of the rent note dated 28/03/1986. In the written statement, it was stated that the suit premises is rented to M/s. Piparia Enterprises and it is wrong to say that defendant is a tenant and M/s. Piparia Enterprises is a registered firm. Defendant also denied the bona fide need of the plaintiff and stated that plaintiff is having many houses and shops in the city of Gwalior and has no bona fide requirement of the disputed shop. It was stated that plaintiff is a 'A' Class contractor and paying income tax and the suit is filed with the intention to harass defendants. Other grounds of the plaint were also denied by the defendants.

5. The trial Court after considering the respective pleadings meandered through different amendments, framed as many as 15 issues for adjudication of the controversy. Evidence was led by the parties in support of their submissions.

6. Trial Court after considering the pleadings, evidence (documentary as well as oral) and submissions of the parties, decreed the suit on the basis of grounds available under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the "Act") and mesne profit were directed to be paid.

7. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, respondent No. 1 preferred first appeal under Section 96 of CPC before first Appellate Court which in turn reversed the judgment and decree passed by respondent No. 1/tenant/defendant. According to the lower appellate Court, plaintiff could not prove his case under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act because he could not establish his title as owner of the disputed property. Plea of plaintiff/landlord in respect of denial of title