1. The defendants have preferred this civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for short referred to as, 'CPC') impugning the judgment and decree dated 09/02/2024, passed by IX District Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 21-A/2023, whereby the First Appeal preferred by respondent / plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC was allowed and the decree of eviction has been passed by reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the Trial Court.

2) The facts essential for disposal of this Second in nutshell are that the respondent (hereinafter for short referred to as, 'plaintiff') Pushpabai Somani instituted a Civil Suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit on 24/07/2017, against the original defendant Raghuveer Jain (the appellants are the legal representatives of original defendant and hereinafter for short referred to as, 'defendant'), in respect of the subject house No. 6/68, New No. 171, Lane of Amar Singh Marg, Freeganj, Ujjain stating that the plaintiff along with Smt. Sumitra Somani jointly purchased the subject house from Govindibai through registered sale deed dated 29/02/2000 and later on co-owner Smt. Sumitra Somani executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of her 50% share in the subject house on 25/08/2006 and the plaintiff attained the absolute ownership of the subject house.

          2.1) The plaintiff further pleaded in the plaint that the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff @ Rs. 1,500/- per month for residential purposes and causing nuisance on demanding the rent. He has not paid the rent to the plaintiff since last 10 years and has constructed permanent structure in place of temporary structure. The plaintiff resides in a rented accommodation in Sahid Park, Ujjain and therefore, plaintiff requires tenanted accommodation bonafidely for residence of herself and her family members and for that purpose there is no suitable accommodation of her own is available or in possession of the plaintiff in the city of Ujjain.

          2.2) The plaintiff further pleaded that she wants to built ground floor, first floor and second floor of the house for the purpose of her residence. Plaintiff issued a notice on 11/05/2017 demanding arrears of rent and vacant possession from the defendant, however, the defendant neither paid the due rent nor delivered the possession, therefore, the plaintiff filed the subject suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit.

          2.3) The defendant filed his written statement and stated that he was tenant of Hukumchand Balmukund in the disputed house for residential purpose @ of rent of Rs. 8/- per month and thereafter, became tenant of Smt. Govindibai, a family member of Hukumchand Balmukund @ of the rent of Rs. 9/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 12/- per month. He deposited Rs. 2,000/- as advance rent to Govindibai in the year 1994 for the period till December 2003 and the Govindibai issued a rough receipt to him. After December 2003, he tendered the rent to Govindibai, who refused to accept the rent and after receipt of notice, he has deposited the rent in the Court under protest and no rent is due against him.

          2.4) The defendant further pleaded that no information or notice of transfer of the subject house to plaintiff by previous owner has been served up on the defendant and there was no attornment. The defendant further pleaded that he is ready to accept the ownership of the plaintiff, in case the plaintiff files the documents of her title. He denied the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff is occupying several other suitable accommodations of her own in the city and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff only for the purpose of increasing the price of the dispute property and the plaintiff wants to rent out the house to someone else at higher rent. The defendant denied the plaint allegations in toto and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

          2.5) The Trial Court framed as many as eight issues and put the parties to trial. The plaintiff examined herself (PW-1) and her husband Satyanarayan Somani (PW-2). The defendant died during the pendency of the suit, hence his legal representatives were brought on record, and the defendant examined Saket S/o Raghuveer Jain as DW-1. The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties by judgment and decree dated 20/10/2022 dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The Trial Court further held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the rent from the defendant, because the relationship of landlord-tenant has not been established and similarly no decree of eviction can be passed in favour of the plaintiff, though the plaintiff has proved the bonafide requirement of the suit accommodation. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the suit.

          2.6) After dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed Civil Regular Appeal in the Court of IX District Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff has proved her title over the subject house and the statement of the defendant is self- contradictory in respect of the attornment. It was further stated before the Appellate Court that the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant.

          2.7) The First Appellate Court by the judgment and decree dated 09/02/2024 allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has stated in the Court that she has purchased the suit house along with Smt. Sumitra Somani, who later on executed the relinquish deed in her favour and in this way the plaintiff has become the absolute owner and occupier of the suit house, wherein the defendant is tenant @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. The statement of the plaintiff was supported by her husband Satyanarayan Somani (PW-2). The defendant himself has admitted that he was the tenant of Hukumchand Balmukund and was paying rent to Govindibai. The defendant has not claimed any right, title or interest in the subject house, therefore, it was not required for the plaintiff to prove the indefeasible title on the suit property and the oral statements of the plaintiff and her witness were sufficient to prove the ownership of the plaintiff.

          2.8) The First Appellate Court further held that there is a presumption in favour of the landlord and the tenant can not be permitted to challenge the title of the landlord and it will be presumed that the property is owned by the landlord. In view of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff proved the ownership by oral evidence and the oral evidence of plaintiff remained unrebutted.

          2.9) Considering the oral evidence of the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit accommodation, who was stepping in the shoes of earlier land owner, therefore, the relationship of landlord-tenant have been established. There was an attornment, which proves by the fact that in the year 2003, when the defendant tendered the rent to Govindibai, she refused to accept the same. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and passed the decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, this Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant.

3) This Second Appeal has been admitted vide order dated 18/12/2024 on the following Substantial Questions of Law:

          "a. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in holding that relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendants and plaintiff has been proved by merely relying upon the oral evidence of the plaintiff ?

          b. Whether in absence of any document of title of having acquired ownership to the suit premises it could have been held that plaintiff is the owner/landlord thereof ?

          c. Whether in the available facts and circumstances of the case, there has been any legal attornment of tenancy by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs ?"

4) The order of admission was assailed by the plaintiff before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 17005/2025, which was dismissed by order dated 17/04/2025, however, the Supreme Court accepted the request of the plaintiff to issue a direction to the High Court to take up and decide this Second Appeal on expeditious basis. Thereafter, I.A. No. 7658/2025 was filed by the respondent / plaintiff for early disposal of the appeal, which was allowed by order dated 17/06/2026 and with the consent of the parties, the appeal was fixed for final hearing at motion stage.

          4.1) The appellant No. 2 Ms. Durga and appellant No. 3 Mr. Saket appeared in person and advanced arguments for the purpose of final disposal of the appeal. The respondent also advanced the arguments through counsel on 09/09/2026.

5) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has not filed any document of title before the Trial Court and/or First Appellate Court, however, in this Second Appeal the appellant / defendant along with an application i.e. I. A. No. 4218/2024 filed the copy of the sale deed executed by Govindibai and others in favour of the plaintiff Pushpabai and one Sumitra Somani on 21/01/2000 along with copy of one Property Tax bill of House No. 113 of Vidhya Nagar, Ujjain issued by Municipal Corporation, Ujjain in the name of the husband of the plaintiff, with a request to accept the documents as additional evidence.

6) Thereafter, the respondent / plaintiff also filed an application i.e. I. A. No. 7657/2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for taking copy of the sale deed dated 29/02/2000 and release deed dated 23/08/2006 on record as additional evidence. The appellant opposed the application filed by the respondent under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC.

7) The applications filed by appellant i.e. I.A. No. 4218/2024 and respondent i.e. I. A. No. 7657/2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are considered. By these applications, both the parties have placed the copy of the sale deed on record, whereby the plaintiff jointly purchased the property from Govindibai. As the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove her ownership and the decree of the First Appellate Court has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the decree has been passed only on the basis of oral evidence of the plaintiff and no document of title had been filed and the substantial question of law has also been framed in respect of filing of the title document, in view of this Court, the copy of the sale deed executed by Govindibai in favour of the plaintiff and Smt. Sumitra Somani is an undisputed document and is relied by both the parties, which appears to be most relevant for the purpose of just decision of the present appeal and the controversy.

8) Though the documents was in possession of the plaintiff since beginning, but not filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court, however, the present application has been filed by the plaintiff stating that as the Court has admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law that whether in absence of any document of title of having acquired ownership to the suit premises, it could have been held that plaintiff is the owner / landlord thereof, the plaintiff is filing this document in the Second Appeal. The reason assigned by the plaintiff is technically not acceptable, however, in the interest of justice and for just decision of the appeal, the applications I. A. No. 4218/2024 and I. A. No. 7657/2025 are partly allowed and the Sale deed dated 21/01/2000 registered on 29/02/2000 only is accepted as additional evidence in the case. Other documents produced by either party have not been taken on record.

9) The copy of the sale deed has been accepted as additional evidence in the case and the document is admitted by both the parties, there is no need to sent the matter to the Trial Court for formally proving the sale deed and the document has been accepted as additional evidence on the basis of the admissions of the parties and considered for the purposes of deciding this appeal.

10) Heard the appellant Saket. He pointed out from the sale deed produced by the plaintiff that as per the registered sale deed, the plaintiff along with Smt. Sumitra Somani purchased the southern part of the Municipal House No. 6/68, New No. 171, Amar Singh Marg, Ujjain. He further submits that from the relinquish deed executed by Smt. Sumitra Somani in favour of the plaintiff, the share of Sumitra Somani in southern part of the House could be relinquished by her in favour of the plaintiff, and therefore, even after receipt of the share of Smt. Sumitra Somani, the plaintiff would become the absolute owner of southern part of House No. 6/68 only, which was originally purchased by the plaintiff with Smt. Sumitra Somani.

          10.1) He further pointed out from the pleadings of the plaintiff that as per the plaintiff, the defendant is living in the western part of the House No. 171, Amar Singh Marg, Freeganj, Ujjain and the suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant from western portion of the suit house. He submits that though the plaintiff is not required to prove the indefeasible title of the suit property, but from the sale deed produced by the plaintiff herself, it appears that she purchased southern portion of the suit house, whereas, the suit accommodation is situated in the western portion of the house. He submits that because of the aforesaid reason, the plaintiff had not filed the copy of sale deed before trial court and/or first appellate court or before this court earlier. He prays for drawing the adverse inference against the plaintiff.

          10.2) The appellant Saket submits that when the defendant demanded the documents of title from the plaintiff, the plaintiff was under obligation to produce the documents of title, as there was no iota of evidence on record to prove the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between them and the defendant never paid any rent to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not file the copy of the sale deed either before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court and filed the copy of sale deed before this court, when the defendant himself has brought the copy before the Court along with I.A. No. 4218/2024.

          10.3) He further submits that the First Appellate Court only on the basis of oral evidence of the plaintiff passed the decree of eviction by admitting the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the property, whereas from the sale deed itself, it appears that the plaintiff has not purchased the western portion of the house, wherein the defendant is residing as tenant of Govindibai. He submits that the Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title of the suit property.

          10.4) The appellant Saket further submits that there was no attornment and the plaintiff failed to prove the attornment. He further submits that the First Appellate Court only on the basis of the oral statement of the plaintiff accepted that the plaintiff has proved the attornment. He further submits that as the relationship of landlord-tenant could not be established between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, no decree of eviction, recovery of rent, mesne profit could be passed by the First Appellate court in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has committed error in passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff by holding that existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant has been proved.

          10.5) He further submits that in the absence of any document of title filed by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit accommodation. He further submits that as there was no attornment, therefore no decree under Section 12(1)(c) could be passed. He prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. He further prays for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff with costs throughout.

11) Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent / plaintiff submits that admittedly the appellants are the tenant in the suit premises and they do not claim any right, title or interest therein. The defendant has admitted in his written statement as well as in the evidence that earlier owner Smt. Govindibai stopped accepting the rent from the year 2003 onward and the defendant has also not paid or deposited any rent since the said period. As Smt. Govindibai stopped accepting the rent from the defendant, it can be easily inferred that she informed the defendant that she has already sold the premises to the plaintiff and resultantly, she is not accepting the rent and the defendant came to know regarding the ownership of the plaintiff. In this way, the attornment of the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff was occurred, even though the defendant neither tendered the rent to the plaintiff nor deposited before Rent Controlling Authority. The conduct of the defendant is objectionable and he had no right to continue the possession of the tenanted premises without making payment of rent.

          11.1) Mr. Mittal further submits that there was an attornment, however, formal attornment of tenancy is not a condition precedent for a transferee landlord to recover rent or maintain eviction proceedings. He relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the matter of Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta Vs. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul reported in 1997 (5) SCC 329 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that a transferee landlord steps into the shoes of the original landlord with all rights and liabilities of the subsisting tenancy and no attornment by the tenant is required. Relevant portion of para No. 6 is reproduced as under:

          "6. ......... It is well settled that a transferee of the lands right steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and the liability of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require the transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer of the landlords rights. Since attornment by the tenant is not required, a notice under section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease by the transferor landlord would be proper and so also the suit for ejectment."

          11.2) He further relied upon the judgment delivered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ku. Shakuntala Guha Vs. Jasmit Kaur Narula reported in 2017 SCC OnLine MP 2128 , wherein the co-ordinate Bench relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta (Supra) and held that formal attornment is not essential and even in the absence of attornment, the transferee landlord can maintain a suit for eviction and recovery of rent.

          11.3) Mr. Mittal submits that admittedly the defendant has not paid the rent since 2003 and this conduct of the defendant dis-entitles him from raising any such defence in respect of the devolution of title in favour of the plaintiff, which has been duly established and proved on record. Mr. Mittal further submits that the defendant in para 14 of his cross-examination has admitted that several prospective purchasers have visited the suit property at the instance of the plaintiff for the purpose of purchasing the suit property, which is an admission on behalf of the defendant that he was fully aware that the property was being dealt with by the plaintiff claiming ownership and authority over it. He further submits that the defendant neither made any bonafide inquiry as to the person legally entitled to receive the rent nor took any steps to deposit the rent before any competent authority or Court. This conduct of the defendant clearly reflects deliberate omission and willful default in discharge of his obligation as tenant.

          11.4) Mr. Mittal submits that prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff duly served a legal notice dated 11/05/2017 (Ex.-P/1) upon the defendant and despite service of said notice, the defendant neither replied to the same nor tendered or deposited arrears of rent and the complete silence and inaction on the part of the defendant, even after receipt of the legal notice, is a strong circumstance, which reinforces that the defendant had no intention to discharge his statutory obligation. The defendant continuously failed to pay or deposit the rent since the year 2003, therefore, made him liable for eviction. His possession is unauthorized and he is in defaulting occupation of the suit premises. He submits that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on due appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles that the defendant was tenant of the plaintiff.

          11.5) Mr. Mittal submits that it is a settled position of law that in a suit for eviction under Section 12 of the Act of 1961, the plaintiff is not required to establish an absolute or indefeasible title to the suit accommodation and the only requirement is to establish his status as a 'landlord' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act entitling him to receive the rent. He submits that the defendant being an admitted tenant, estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from disputing the plaintiff's status as landlord except in accordance with the limited exceptions recognized by law. He submits that at no point of time the defendant disputed the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and it is his consistent stand that he is tenant in the suit accommodation, which proves the existence of the relationship of the landlord and tenant.

          11.6) Mr. Mittal submits that copy of the registered sale deed has already been placed on record along with application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, which unequivocally establishes that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the suit property by registered conveyance in the year 2000 and the ownership of the suit premises need not be adjudicated for the purpose of passing a decree under Section 12(1)(e) due to admission of the tenancy in the suit premises and particularly when the document of ownership has already been produced by both the sides in this appeal along with the applications filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. He submits that plaintiff was not under an obligation to establish his status as absolute owner and to prove indefeasible title over the suit property. The only requirement is to establish his status as landlord and entitlement to receive the rent, which the plaintiff has already proved.

          11.7) Mr. Mittal further submits that it is the finding of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court both that at the time of institution of the suit, the plaintiff was residing in rented premises and the plaintiff bonafidely required the suit accommodation for the purpose of residence of herself and family members, as she is not having any other suitable alternate accommodation of her own in the city of Ujjain. He further submits that the plaintiff proved the bonafide requirement and the Trial Court and first Appellate Court have not committed any error in accepting the requirement as claimed by the tenant. Mr. Mittal prayed for dismissal of the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

12) Arguments advanced on behalf of the parties are considered and record of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are perused.

13) It is not in dispute that the original defendant Raghuveer Jain was the tenant of Hukumchand since long and was paying rent @ of Rs. 8/- per month and subsequently paid the rent @ Rs. 12/- per month to Govindibai, who was the family member of Hukumchand. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff purchased the suit house on 29/02/2000 through registered sale deed jointly with one Smt. Sumitra Somani. The defendant in his written statement did not admit this fact and stated that if the plaintiff will file the documents of her title, he will accept that the plaintiff as his landlord. The plaintiff before filing the suit issued a notice (Ex. - P/1), wherein the plaintiff demanded the rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month and vacant possession of the suit accommodation. The notice was issued on 11/05/2017 by Mr. Rajkumar Jhanwar, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff, wherein it was not mentioned that when plaintiff has purchased the suit house and when the relinquish deed was executed by co-owner Smt. Sumitra Somani in favour of the plaintiff. It was also not mentioned in the notice that when the rent was enhanced and how the rent was fixed @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. Some bald allegations were levelled in the notice, which was served upon the defendant.

14) It is true that in a suit of eviction, the landlord is not required to prove the indefeasible title of the suit property, but in the absence of the proof of existence of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and when the defendant has demanded for filing the document of ownership, the landlord is under an obligation to file the documents of ownership, however, the plaintiff did not produce any document of her ownership and tried to establish the ownership and landlord-tenant relationship only on the basis of her oral statement supported by oral statement of her husband, conduct of the defendant and circumstances.

15) In the statement, the plaintiff stated that she is the owner of western portion of the house No. 171, Lane of Amar Singh Marg, Freeganj, Ujjain, which was purchased by her from Govindibai jointly with Sumitra Somani, who executed the relinquish deed in favour of the plaintiff. In her cross-examination, she accepted that her husband is engaged in the business of immovable properties and in para 14 she stated that her husband has purchased the suit house in her name. In para 18, she accepted that the original sale deed and original documents of title are available with her husband, however, the same have not been filed in the Court and she cannot assign any reason for not filing the documents. She stated that she is not having any knowledge of execution of the sale deed and relinquish deed. All the transactions were done by her husband and she has just signed as per the instructions of her husband.

16) When it was asked, whether the defendant paid rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month to her. She stated that her husband has collected the rent and issued the rent receipt, but no such rent receipt was produce by the plaintiff in the Court. The plaintiff in para 23 of her cross-examination stated that she never demanded the rent from the defendant and never visited the suit house after purchasing the same. She stated that she is not having any personal knowledge that the defendant was tenant of Hukumchand Balmukund @ Rs. 8/- per month and was paying Rs. 12/- per month to the Govindibai.

17) The husband of the plaintiff stepped in the witness box and supported the statement of plaintiff, however, accepted in the cross- examination that the dates of sale deed and relinquish deed have not been disclosed in notice, plaint and chief examination and no document has been filed in support of the said contentions of the plaintiff. He stated that he is not having any knowledge that how much amount, the defendant was paying to the earlier landlord per month as rent, however he stated that the rent was decided at the time of attornment at Rs. 1,500/- per month.

18) The defendant Saket appeared as witness and denied the plaint allegations in his statement and has produced the old rent receipts from 01/03/1960 to 09/08/1974 (Ex.-D/1 to D/22) to prove that he is residing in the suit house since the time of his grandfather. He stated that when the plaintiff and her husband approached to them, they simply asked them to provide the document of title, but the plaintiff and her husband had never shown the document of title. He accepted that when the earlier landlord refused to accept the rent in the year 2003, no application was moved in the Court of Rent Controlling Authority to deposit the rent by his late father.

19) Section 12 (1) (e) of the M. P. Accommodation A ct, 1961 reads as under :-

          "(e) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned;"

          The word 'landlord' has been defined in Section 2(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act as under :-

          "landlord" means a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any accommodation, whether on his own account or on account of or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the accommodation were let to a tenant and includes every person not being a tenant who from time to time derives title under a landlord."

20) A bare perusal of the definition makes it clear that a landlord may even be devoid of ownership within the meaning of the said Act. Therefore, in a case where ownership is required to be proved, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to merely establish his landlordship. He is also required simultaneously to prove that he is owner of the suit premises. However, there is a difference of degree of proof in a suit for eviction based on the relationship of landlord and tenant and in a suit for possession based on title. Both kinds of suits can not be treated at par. The burden of proving ownership in a suit between landlord and tenant where the landlord-tenant relationship is either admitted or proved is not so heavy as in a title suit and lesser quantum of proof may suffice than what can be needed in a suit based on title against a person setting up a contending title while disputing the title of the plaintiff.

21) While seeking an ejectment on the ground of bonafide requirement under Clause (e) abovesaid the landlord is required to allege and prove not only that he is a 'landlord' but also that he is the 'owner' of the premises. The definition of 'landlord' and 'tenant' as given in Clause (b) and (i) of Section 2 of the Act make it clear that under the Act the concept of landlordship is different from that of ownership. A person may be a 'landlord' though not an 'owner' of the premises. The factor determinative of landlordship is the factum of his receiving or his entitlement to receive the rent of any accommodation. Such landlord would be entitled to seek an eviction of the tenant on one or more of such grounds falling within the ambit of Section 12 (1) of the Act, which do not require the landlord to be an owner also so as to be entitled to successfully maintain a claim for eviction. Clause (e) contemplates a claim for eviction being maintained by an owner - landlord and not a landlord merely. Though the concept of ownership in a landlord- tenant litigation governed by Rent Control Law has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Ownership is a relative term the import where of depends on the context in which it is used. In Rent Control Legislation, the landlord can be said to be owner, if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else, to evict the tenant and then to retain, control, hold and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit.

22) Considering the facts of the case, it appears that the existence of landlord-tenant relationship could not be proved by the plaintiff by leading any credible evidence and the plaintiff is claiming the same only on the basis of inferences. The copy of the sale deed has been produced by both the parties in this appeal and from bare perusal of sale deed, it appears that the plaintiff along with Smt. Sumitra Somani purchased the southern part of the Municipal House No. 6/68, New No. 171, Amar Singh Marg, Ujjain, whereas the defendant is residing in the western part of the House No. 171, Amar Singh Marg, Freeganj, Ujjain and the suit has also been filed for eviction of the defendant from western portion of the suit house. From the sale deed produced by the plaintiff herself, it appears that she has not purchased western portion of the suit house, however, the suit accommodation is situated in the western portion of the house. Once the copy of sale deed has already brought on record, it can not be ignored.

23) In the above conspectus, it is very difficult to accept the arguments advanced by Mr. Mittal that the plaintiff is not under obligation to establish his status as absolute owner and to prove indefeasible title over the suit property and the only requirement is to establish his status as landlord and entitlement to receive the rent. In the considered opinion of this court, the plaintiff has failed to prove the ownership over the suit accommodation at all and the first appellate has committed serious error of law in accepting the ownership of the plaintiff only on the basis of the oral statements and inferences. The plaintiff even failed to established the existence of landlord- tenant relationship. The plaintiff failed to prove that the rate of rent ever admitted between the plaintiff and defendant @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be given seal of approval and the same are not sustainable at all.

24) Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed by this court at the time of admission are answered accordingly. This Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court i.e. IX District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Regular Appeal no. 21A/2023 on 09/02/2024 are hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed by trial court i.e. VI Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ujjain in RCSA 265/2017 on 20/10/2022 are restored and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. The respondent will bear her own costs and the cost of appellants also. Decree be drawn up.

25) Record of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court be returned with the copy of this judgment and decree.