Aggrieved by a decree and judgment dated 25.6.2001 pronounced by 9th Additional District Judge, Gwalior for his eviction on the ground under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, i.e., on the ground of denial of title in favour of the respondent No.1, in an appeal preferred by the said respondent No.1 against judgment and decree dated 11.12.2000 of 10th Civil Judge Class-2, Gwalior dismissing her suit for eviction and arrears of rent, this second appeal has been preferred by the appellant-tenant.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant was a tenant in a portion of a house bearing Municipal No. 30/1608/1 (hereinafter referred as 'Suit Premises'). The appellant was inducted as a tenant in it by one Manorama Devi Falke who died issueless. Ramchandra Rao and Man Singh Rao were the sons of her only sister. No notice of any kind of transfer by Ram Chandra Rao etc. or by the respondents was ever given to the appellant.

One Smt. Gyaso Bai, now deceased, had submitted an application under section 23 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in respect to the suit premises before the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, against the appellant on the ground of requirement for her adopted son Raman Lal respondent No.1. That application being not filed by landlord of the categories enumerated in section 23 (J) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was transferred and ultimately was registered as a civil suit in the Court of 10th Civil Judge Class-2, Gwalior.

In the said civil suit before the 10th Civil Judge Class-2, Gwalior (hereinafter referred as 'Trial Court') the respondent No.1 contending that he was the adopted son of late Gyaso Bai who alongwith respondents No.2 to 4 had bought the suit premises from Ramchandra Rao etc., has become the landlord of the suit premises, prayed for eviction of the appellant on various grounds falling under clause (a), clause (f), clause (0) and clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the said Act. Later on, he gave up his claim of eviction of appellant on the grounds mentioned under said clauses (0) and (f). Subsequently, during the hearing of appeal, claim for eviction of appellant under said clauses (a) and (o) was also given up by the respondent No. 1. Thus, his claim remained for eviction of appellant on the ground mentioned under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act only.

With respect to the said ground under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, it is not disputed that the appellant had denied the title of respondent No.1 Raman Lal contending firstly that the transfer deed dated 8.9.1987 by Ramchandra Rao, Man Singh Rao and Uday Singh Rao in favour of Gyaso Bai and respondents No.2 to 4 was not a transfer by all previous owners of the said premises and secondly that the respondent No.1 Raman Lal was not a validly adopted son of Gyaso Bai.

The learned Trial Court held that respondent No. 1 Raman Lal was the landlord of appellant and was the validly adopted son of late Gyaso Bai who had in turn bought the premises from the previous landlord. At the same time, the learned Trial Court further held that since the appellant has not disputed that originally Smt. Manorama Devi Falke and thereafter, Ramchandra Rao etc. were his landlords and has not claimed title in himself, there was no disclaimer of title as required for a ground of eviction under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. Thus, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent No. 1. However, the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in an appeal by the respondent No.1 holding that as the appellant has denied even the title of Ram Chandra Rao, Man Singh Rao and Uday Singh Rao also by asserting that besides them, there were other persons who were joint-owners of the suit premises and of respondent No. I, by challenging the fact