Tenant cannot deny landlord's title during tenancy; denial of title constitutes grounds for eviction under M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

JUDGMENT

01. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity, CPC) has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, District Mandsaur in Civil Appeal No. 35-A/2006 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 08.05.2005 passed by learned Third Civil Judge, Class-I, District Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 165-A/1994 whereby the learned trial Court granted a decree for ejectment under Sections 12(1)(a), (c), (n) and (m) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1961”).

02. Shorn of details, brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit against the appellant on the allegations that he owned a plot situated at Mandsaur and the present appellant i.e. Gwalior Northern Transport Company (further referred to as ""GNTC") was having its office and Depot. In the year 1939-40, the aforesaid land was allotted to the said transport company by the resolution of a Special General Committee on 06.09.1939. On the basis of the said resolution, the GNTC deposited a sum of Rs.1386.12 with the Municipal Council and on 15.09.1940, a Bainama Sultani was handed over to the said transport company. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that his father Dayaram was working as a Contractor and there were conversation for sell held between the said company and Dayaram and he deposited Rs.1306.12 Annas with the said transport company and possession of the land was also delivered to Late Dayaram but sale-deed could not be executed. On 30.12.1940, the plaintiff was minor and his mother Dolibai, after getting permission constructed office, shed, bath room etc. and handed over the same to Gwalior Northern Transport Company.

03. It has also been alleged in the plaint that on 01.04.1942 rate of rent of the said premises was agreed at Rs.60/- per month and further increased to be Rs.70/- per month. Same continued till 28.02.1950 After formation of Madhya Bharat, the said G.N.T.C. merged into Madhya Bharat Roadways till 31.12.1956 and after formation of the Madhya Pradesh, the appellant becomes Corporation (M.P.S.R.T.C.), the rent was increased to Rs.90/- per month. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that since 31.01.1987, the defendant has deposited the rent at the rate Rs.90/- per month. However, defendant did not deposit the rent from 01.02.1987 to 31.09.1991. It is also alleged that the application was filed before the Rent Controlling Authority fixing of standard rent in which the appellant had denied the plaintiff's title and as also demolished roof of building and constructed a new building. The plaintiff further alleged that in the said premises, he wants to construct a new building, therefore, the suit has filed for ejectment under Sections 12(1)(a), (e), (m) & (n) of the Act, 1961.

04. The appellant by filing written statement denied the plaint's allegations made in the plaint and contended that Bainama Sultani was not executed in favour of plaintiff's predecessor-in-title and the appellant had no means to construct its building etc. owing to that, it was agreed between Dayaram and G.N.T.C. that he would construct the building and would receive rent which was agreed at that time @ Rs.60/- per month. However, it was denied that the plaintiff or his father are the owners of the suit property because there is no material to show that the property was transferred in the name of Dayaram. The appellant/defendant also denied the allegation that it has failed to deposit the arrears of rent and contended that the same has been deposited in the Court within the prescribed period of one month. The appellant/defendant also contended that defendant has not denied the title of the plaintiff but on the basis of Bainami Sultani which has been admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint itself that the same was executed in favour of the appellant and thus, the question of denial of title did n