The central legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord must prove ownership of the premises to seek eviction under section 12(1)(c) and (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is tenant's/defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9-9-2003 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Katni in Civil Appeal No. 41-A/2002, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29-4-2002 passed by learned Second Civil Judge, Class II, Katni in Civil Suit No. 11-A/1998 decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent has been affirmed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this second appeal lie in narrow compass. Suffice it is to say that the plaintiff/respondent on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant filed a suit for eviction against defendant/ appellant on the ground envisaged under section 12(1)(c) and (f) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act").

3. The appellants are the L.Rs. of defendant/tenant who had died during the pendency of this second appeal. In brief the case of plaintiff is that, he is the landlord of the tenanted premises which is non-residential and he gave the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- shown in the map annexed with the plaint, to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, no rent is due upon the tenant/ defendant. The suit accommodation is required by plaintiff for himself and for his two major sons who after graduation are sitting idle and are not serving anywhere. The need of plaintiff is bona fide and he is not having any reasonably suitable non-residential vacant accommodation of his own in the town in which he along with his two major sons could start the business of Seeds and Fertilisers and the suit premises is a suitable place to carry on such type of business because nearby the suit premises there are several other shops of Seeds and Fertilisers. The tenant/defendant is quite aware about the bona fide need of the landlord/ plaintiff and he also gave assurance that he would vacate the suit premises on 1-4-1997, but, despite the assurance given by him, he has not vacated it nor delivered its possession to the plaintiff. Hence, a decree of eviction on the ground of bona fide need as envisaged under section 12(1)(f) of the Act was originally sought by the plaintiff at the time of the filing of the suit.

4. The defendant by filing written statement denied the bona fide need of plaintiff, although he admitted the rate of rent to be Rs. 1600/- per month of the suit premises. The factum of tenancy has not been denied by him in the written statement. On the other hand he has admitted that he is the tenant of plaintiff of the suit accommodation given for non-residential purpose. However, so far as the ownership of the suit premises is concerned, the tenant has pleaded that he is requesting that the ownership part be proved by the plaintiff and this is also indispensable because in respect to ownership for the year 1977-78 to 1995-96 in the record of Municipal Corporation Mudwara (Katni) the name of plaintiff as owner of the suit property is not mentioned and hence defendant by paying respect to the law and without prejudicing the plaintiff's right in order to provide justice pleaded in the written statement and prayed to the Court that plaintiff may be asked to prove his ownership. Further, defendant pleaded that in the year 1996-97 also in the municipal record plaintiff has not been shown to be owner of the suit premises however, anyhow, he got his name entered in the municipal record in the later year. Although, earlier to 1996-97 throughout Dhanya Kumar, Rajkumar and Krishna Kumar have been shown to be the owners of the suit premises.

5. The defendant also specifically denied in so many words in the written statement about the alleged bona fide need of the plaintiff for himself and for his two major sons and also denied that plaintiff is not having any other reasonably suitable vacant non-residential place of his own in the township. Further, he had denied the allegations of plaintiff that he (defendant) ever gave any assurance to plaintiff that suit accommodation would be vacated by him till 1-4-1997 and hence it