JUDGMENT :

G.S. Ahluwalia, J.

This appeal being arguable is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"(i) Whether the Courts below erred in law by holding that the appellants have failed to establish landlord–tenant relationship?

(ii) Whether the Courts below erred in law by holding that the original defendant Rashid was not in arrears of rent and the appellants have failed to prove their bona fide need for residential purposes?

(iii) Whether the appellants are entitled for decree under section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act on the ground of denial of title ?

2. Since the parties are represented by their counsel, therefore, this appeal is heard finally.

3. This second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23-04-2015 passed by First Additional District Judge, Sheopur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 30A/2015, as well as the judgment and decree dated 26-04-2013 passed by First Civil Judge Class-II, Sheopur in Regular Civil Suit No. 61A/2011.

4. The appellants are the plaintiffs who have lost their case from both the Courts below. The original defendant died during the pendency of this appeal and is being represented by his legal representatives.

5. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that appellants had filed a suit for eviction as well as for recovery of rent and mesne profits in respect of the part of the house situated in Sutandi Mohalla, Ward No. 4, Baroda, District Sheopur, which is marked with blue lines in the plaint map. It is the case of appellants that they had purchased the house in question from Mohanlal, son of Kalyanchand, by registered sale deed dated 19-06-1986. At the time of sale deed, respondent was already in possession of the disputed property as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. After purchasing the property, original defendant also became the tenant of plaintiffs. Defendant has not paid the rent to plaintiffs so far. Portion of the house, which is in possession of plaintiffs, is not sufficient to cater their needs, and accordingly, they bona fide require the remaining part of the house for their residential purposes. It was further pleaded that the house in question is in a dilapidated condition which requires maintenance. It was further pleaded by plaintiffs that defendant had filed a suit for specific performance of contract and for recovery of possession for part of the property which is in possession of plaintiffs. The said suit has already been dismissed by the trial court, and the regular civil appeal has also been dismissed. In the said suit, defendant had admitted that he was in possession of the property in dispute as a tenant. Plaintiffs, by sending a notice dated 04-02-2011, has terminated the tenancy of original defendant. However, in spite of service of notice, defendant has not vacated the suit premises.

6. Original defendant filed his written statement and claimed that prior to 1986, original defendant had entered into an agreement to purchase the house in question from Mohanlal for a consideration of Rs. 34,000/-. Said agreement was made in the month of May 1983. An amount of Rs. 3,000/- in advance was given by original defendant to Mohanlal. It was claimed that defendant was in possession of a part of the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. Original owner Mohanlal did not execute the sale deed in favour of defendant and sold the property to the plaintiffs in an illegal manner. Accordingly, it was pleaded that plaintiffs would not acquire any right or title by virtue of sale deed dated 19-06-1986 executed by Mohanlal in their favour. It was further pleaded that Mohanlal had filed a suit for redemption of mortgage which was dismissed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. Even the second appeal was also dismissed. Since the defendant was no more tenant, therefore, there was no need for him to pay the rent. It was further submitted that since defendant is in possession of the pro