1984 Supreme(MP) 294

J. S. Verma, J.
Babulal v. Deo Janki
S. A. No. 85 of 1978 (J); Decided on 27-6-1984.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Centrol Act, 1961 (M. P.) - S. 12 (1)-eviction suit under-question of title can be gone into for purposes of deciding relationship of landlord and tenant.

       (2) Landlord and Tenant d`registered will from previous landlord found provedd`relationship between plaintiff and defendant established.

       (3) Civil P. C., 7908 - O. 41, R. 27 --additional evidence-evidence sought to be adduced already discussed-application for addition, evidence rejected.

       This is defendants appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the: first appellate court.

       The plaintiffs suit for ejectment is based on the ground contained in section 12 (1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. Admittedly, one Kallo Bai was the initial owner of the suit accommodation. The plaintiffs claim that a registered will dated 9-7·1966 (Ex. P-I) was executed in their favour by Kallo Bai, as b result of which plaintiffs became the landlord of the defendant, who was in occupation of the Suit accommodation as tenant of Kallobai. Admittedly, no rent has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The defence is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendant also contended that there was an unregistered gift-deed dated 25-2-1 ~66 executed in defendants favour by Kallobai, as a result of which the subsequent registered will dated 9-7-1966 in plaintiffs favour was ineffective.

       Held: It may be mentioned that this is not a title suit in which adjudic-action of the title set-up by the defendant has to he made. It is settled that the question of title can be gone into only incidentally in such a suit, for the purpose of deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant. The proof of a registered will dated 9-7-1966 by Kallo Bai in plaintiffs favour clearly satisfies this requirement to discharge the burden which was on the plaintiffs for proving the contract of tenancy. No further discussion of this question is, therefore, necessary.

       An application has been made under Order 41, Rule 27 C. P. C. by the defendant/appellant in this court for admitting as additional evidence a document purporting to be the unregistered gift-deed dated 25-2-1966 on which the defendants claim to title is based. In my opinion, no ground has been made out for admitting this additional evidence at this stage. That apart, the above conclusion has been reached assuming that document is a part of the evidence, inasmuch as. the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is really based on that document. The application is therefore. rejected.

       Appeal dismissed.