JUDGMENT C.K. Prasad, J. 1. This is defendant-tenants' appeal (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) under Section 100 of the C.P.C. Plaintiff-Landlord's (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) suit for eviction of the tenant was decreed by the 4th Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur by its judgment and decree dated 31.3.94 passed in C.S. No. 342-A/89. Appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur by his judgment and decree dated 21.12.95, passed in C.A. No. B-A/94. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has preferred this appeal. 2. By order dated 4.1.96 the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of laws- 1. "whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the document Ex.P.1 could be admitted in evidence though it is neither registered nor is on proper stamps is entitled as an Ikrarnama but in fact is a deed of gift ?" 2. "whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the plaintiff is the sole owner of the property and is entitled to evict the defendant ?" 3. "whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the defendant was entitled to challenge the derivative title of the plaintiff and was exempted from being evicted u/s 12 (1) (c) of the MP. Accommodation Control Act ?". 3. For the purpose of deciding the substantial questions of law formulated above, the facts as pleaded by respective parties are as under- According to the landlord the suit accommodation was taken on rent by the tenant from Sheikh Ameer, Sheikh Ameer who happens to be brother of landlord & gifted the said accommodation to the landlord on 22.8.88 and thereafter landlord became the owner of the house. The gift is reduced in writing and the same is admitted in evidence as Ex.P.1. According to the landlord he gave notice of factus of gift, to the tenant on 15.9.88 by registered post and on the same day Sheikh Ameer i.e. the donee also gave written notice to the tenant. According to the landlord, tenant paid the rent upto December 1989 but thereafter stopped the payment of rent. 4. The tenant in the written statement has stated that the deed of gift is illegal and concocted and the landlord has not derived any title from the same. According to the landlord, tenant paid the rent upto December 1989 but thereafter stopped the payment of rent. 4. The tenant in the written statement has stated that the deed of gift is illegal and concocted and the landlord has not derived any title from the same. It has been further stated that in the Assessment Register of the municipality the name of Sheikh Ameer has been entered. The tenant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and has stated that he paid rent regularly to Sheikh Ameer. On the pleadings of the parties, both the courts below concurrently found that the suit accommodation was gifted by Sheikh Ameer to the landlord on 22.8.88 and it is a legal document. 5. Shri Trivedi appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that deed of gift (Ex.P.1) ought is not to have been admitted in evidence as the same is unregistered. Shri Prashant Mishra however, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that once the deed gift (Ex.P.1) having been admitted in evidence without any objection, the appellant cannot be permitted to challenge its admission at a later stage. In the case of P.C. Purushothama Reddler vs. S. Perumal A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 608, the Supreme Court held as follows- 18. Before leaving this case it is necessary to refer to one of the contentions taken by Mr. Ramamurthi, learned counsel for the respondent. He contended that the Police reports referred to earlier are in admissible in evidence as the Head Constables who covered those meetings have not been examined in the case. Those reports were marked without any objection. Hence it is not open to the respondent now to object to their admissibility see Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 110. Accordingly I, have no hesitation in rejecting this submission of Shri Trivedi. 6. Mr. Trivedi then submits that the parties are Mohomedan and therefore, governed by the principles of Mohomedan law, and although their law permit oral gift but once the donar elects to reduce it in writing the same requires compulsory registration. However, Mr. Mishra submits that even in a case when the deed of gift is reduced in writing, registration of said document is not compulsory. However, Mr. Mishra submits that even in a case when the deed of gift is reduced in writing, registration of said document is not compulsory. In support of his submission Shri Trivedi has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Govt. of Hyderabad vs. Smt. Tayyaba Begum A.I.R. 1962 A.P. 199 and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph which reads as follows- 6. What follows from Section 129 is that it is need less for a Mahomedan to execute a registered instrument to settle his property on some one. In such a case, it is sufficient to conform to the rule of Mahomedan Law. An oral gift could made followed by delivery of the property. That section dispenses with the necessity to execute registered instruments in case falling under section 129. But it does not prevant persons governed by the rules of Mahomedan Law to effect a transfer in the manner contemplated by Section 123. It is only in cases where the parties avail themselves of the benefit of the rule of Mehomedan Law in this behalf, they are required to have a stamped document duly registered. In my opinion, the judgment aforesaid in no way supports the case of the appellant. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that Mahomedan law dispenses with the necessity to execute registered instruments in relation to gift but it does not prevent person governed by Mahomedan law to register a gift deed. In my opinion, option to get the deed registered does not mean that in case it is reduced in writing, the same has to be registered. 7. As regards the question of registration of the gift deed in Mahomedan law, matter is squarely answered by the V.R. Krishna Iyer, J as he then was in the case of Makku Rawther's Chindren : Assan Ravther and others vs. Manahapara Charavil A.I.R. 1972 Ker. 27 with which I respectfully agree and the same reads as follows- 8. I regret my inability to agree with the reasoning in these decisions. 27 with which I respectfully agree and the same reads as follows- 8. I regret my inability to agree with the reasoning in these decisions. In the context of Section 17 a document is the same as an instrument and to draw nice distinctions between the two only serves to baffle, not to illumine, Mulla Says: "The words 'document' and 'instrument' are used inter changeable in the Act." An instrument of gift is one whereby a gift is made. Wherein law a gift cannot be affected by a registered deed as such, it cannot be an instrument of gift. The legal position is well settled. A Muslim gift may be valid even without a registered deed and may be invalid even with a registered deed. Registration being irrelevant to its legal force, a deed setting out a Muslim gift cannot be regarded as constitutive of the gift and is not compulsorily registrable. (Emphasis mine) Thus I do not find any illegality in the admission of the document. 8. Shri Trivedi submits that deed in question (Ex.P.1) is not a gift deed but an Ikrarnama and the very assumption that it is a gift is erroneous. True it is that the deed in its heading uses the expression Ikrarnama but in my opinion the same is not conclusive. In my opinion for assessing the nature of the document, one is required to go into its entire contents. The contents of the document show that Sheikh Ameer gifted the property to the landlord. Thus, I do not find any substance in this submission of Shri Trivedi also. 9. Shri Trivedi then contends that for a valid gift in Mahomedan law, handing over of the possession of the property to the donee is sine-qua-non and the same is lacking in the present case. In that view of the matter, according to the learned counsel, the gift is invalid and the donee does not become the owner of the property. Shri Mishra however, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that third party cannot challenge the validity of the gift on the ground that the possession had not been delivered. He further submits that the assertion of the tenant that the landlord did not come in possession of the property is also erroneous. I find substance in both the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. He further submits that the assertion of the tenant that the landlord did not come in possession of the property is also erroneous. I find substance in both the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. The question whether the possession has been delivered is relevant only when an issue is raised between the donor or those claiming under him in one side and the donee or those claiming under him on the other side. In my opinion, a stranger cannot invoke the rule that the gift is bad because there has been no delivery of possession. Once the donee accepts the gift and stood by it a stranger cannot question its validity on the ground of want of delivery of possession. It is relevant here to state that the donor and donee in the present case have been examined and they have stood by the gift. 10. Now, coming to the factual aspect Shri Trivedi submits that possession was not given to the donee would be apparent from the evidence of P.W.1 landlord himself in paragraph 9 wherein he has stated that before recording of his name in the municipal record, tenant paid rent to his brother i.e. donor P.W.2. Sheikh Ameer donor in paragraph 2 of his deposition has stated that he received the rent from the tenant upto 21.4.89 i.e. prior to the date on which he received information of recording of the name of the landlord in Municipal record. Shri Trivedi has further drawn my attention to the notice (Ex.P.3) dated 15.9.88 given by the landlord to the tenant asking him to vacate the premises and to handover the vacant possession to him of the same. Referring to the aforesaid evidence, Shri Trivedi submits that the very fact that the landlord's brother i.e. donor took rent even after the date of gift, clearly shows that possession was not given. It is further submitted that landlord asking the tenant to vacate the premises and give possession to him clearly show that possession was not handed over by the donor to the landlord. This according to the learned counsel makes the gift invalid and the landlord does not become the owner of the suit accommodation. I do not find any substance in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also. This according to the learned counsel makes the gift invalid and the landlord does not become the owner of the suit accommodation. I do not find any substance in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also. In my opinion, merely receipt of rent by the donor, even after the date of the gift shall not ipso facto mean that donee has not given possession of the suit accommodation. No law contemplates payment of rent to the owner only. Similarly asking the tenant to handover the possession does not mean that the landlord never came in possession of the suit accommodation. In my opinion, it is not actual physical possession, which is necessary for a valid gift. Donor has stated that possession was given and the property in question being in tenancy, absence of actual physical possession will not invalidate the gift. I negative this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. It is relevant here to state that the courts below passed the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement as also on the ground of disclaimer which are grounds for eviction under section 12 (1) (e) and 12 (1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act respectively. In view of my answer to the first two substantial questions of law in favour of the landlord it is not necessary to answer third substantial question of law as its answer even in favour of the tenant shall have no bearing, as the decree of eviction remains intact on the ground of bona fide requirement. 12. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed