Short Note : 1. Plaintiff non applicant has instituted a suit for eviction against the defendant-applicant on the allegations that he has purchased under registered sale-deed dated 19-12-1973 the suit premises from the original lessor Ratanlal and has, thus, become the landlord. The suit for ejectment has been filed on the grounds under section 12 (1) (a) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (herein-after referred to as the Act) on cause of action as laid with details in the plaint. 2. The defendant-applicant, inter-alia has taken the plea that the sale deed is a fictitious and bogus transaction. 3. The factum of the genuine need was also denied and it was asserted that the real motive of the plaintiff was to enhance the rent. 4. On the pleadings of the parties Issues No.6 and 7 were raised by the trial Court which are as under:- "Issue No. 6 :- D;k oknh us nqdku [kkyh djkus dks csukeh c;ukek djk;k gSA^^ "Issue No.7 :- D;k oknh us egt fdjk;k c<+kus dh xjt ls >wBk nkok nk;j fd;k gSA^^ 5. The plaintiff applied for deletion of the aforesaid issues. This application was opposed by the defendant-applicant but allowed by the trial Court Hence this revision. Held: The plea on the basis of which Issue No.6 was raised has been expressly taken by the defendant-applicant in para 13 of his written statement. In the instant case, the plaintiff seeks to derive a title on the basis of the sale-deed dated 19-12-1973, executed by Ratanlal in his favour. The defendant-applicant is entitled to challenge the derivative title so claimed by the plaintiff is within the permissible limits as held in Suggabai v. Smt. Hiralal ( 1966 JLJ 227 ). Moreover, the defendant wants to show that the alleged sale-deed is fictitious and bogus, and as such ineffective for the purposes of effecting the transfer, with a result that the plaintiff-non-applicant is not clothed with the status of landlord. Such a plea is, therefore, a material plea. 6. The allegations made by the defendant in para 13 of his written statement are material propositions of fact and law, because if established they may result non-suiting of the plaintiff. 7. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the aforesaid plea could not give rise to Issue No.6. 6. The allegations made by the defendant in para 13 of his written statement are material propositions of fact and law, because if established they may result non-suiting of the plaintiff. 7. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the aforesaid plea could not give rise to Issue No.6. The plea raised by the defendant can be gone into in case of the present nature. Nothing contrary to this flows from the ratio of the case reported in 1964 JLJ SN 22. In this case, the plea of the defendant was only to the effect that the transaction of gift-deed was effected with a motive to get the tenant ejected. There was no plea of the present character in that case. 8. According to the aforesaid the revision succeeds and is partly allowed. Issue No. 6 is restored, though it is directed to be reframed as under:- ^^¼6½ D;k oknh us tks o;ukek rkjh[k 26&12&76 djk;k gS] og cukoVh o QthZ gSA 1965 JLJ 227 relied on, 1964 JLJ SN 22 distinguished. Revision partly allowed.