JUDGMENT : 1. - This Civil Second Appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the defendant tenant Shri Hardayal against the judgment and decree dated 3-8-2002, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 10-3-1997. 2. The plaintiff landlord Shri Madan Mohan (since deceased) filed civil suit for eviction against the defendant tenant Hardayal in September, 1982, with the averments that suit shop was on monthly rent of Rs. 142.50. Eviction was sought on the grounds of substantial damage to the shop, default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide requirement. 3. In written statement, it was pleaded that the defendant was tenant in the suit shop since 1-12-1959. Initially the monthly rent was Rs. 25/- and it was enhanced from time to time. All the grounds of eviction were denied. Amended pleadings were filed subsequently and one more ground i.e. denial of the title of the landlord was added as ground of eviction. 4. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Alwar, vide judgment dated 10-3-1997, did not decide Issue Nos. 1 and 5 relating to default in payment of rent and payment of rent made up to July 1982 as both the issues had already been deleted by the Court. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 relating to reasonable and bonafide requirement and comparative hardship were also left undecided as the same were not pressed on behalf of the plaintiff landlord. Issue No. 2 with regard to substantial damage to the suit shop was decided against the plaintiff while Issue Nos. 7 to 11 were decided in favour of the plaintiff landlord. On the basis of the decision on Issue No. 11, it was held that the defendant tenant had denied the title of the landlord hence decree of eviction was passed in favour of the plaintiff landlord. 5. Civil First Appeal filed by the defendant tenant was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 3-8-2003. It is also made clear that both the original landlord as well as the tenant died and their legal representatives were brought on record. 5. Civil First Appeal filed by the defendant tenant was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 3-8-2003. It is also made clear that both the original landlord as well as the tenant died and their legal representatives were brought on record. The learned Judge of the First Appellant Court has specifically observed that decision only on Issue No. 11 was challenged in this appeal and having heard learned counsel for the parties only on this issue the learned Judge upheld the decision of the trial Court on this issue and thus confirmed the decree of eviction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. These facts are not in dispute that the suit shop was let out to the defendant tenant Hardayal on 1-12-1959 by the original landlord plaintiff Madan Mohan. This shop in a family settlement in the year 1970, come to the share of Vinai Kumar - son of landlord Madan Mohan. Upon intimation to the tenant, the tenant executed a rent note in favour of Vinai Kumar on 19-9-1970. Again the defendant tenant was informed on 14-8-1981 that this shop had come to the share of Madan Mohan, the original landlord in another family settlement and thus the defendant tenant was informed to pay rent to Shri Madan Mohan but no fresh rent note was executed in favour of Shri Madan Mohan and defendant continued to pay rent to Shri Madan Mohan. 7. Thereafter during the pendency of the suit, one application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code was filed on behalf of the defendant tenant on 23-2-1987, with a prayer that in view of family settlement, which took place in the year 1970, Shri Madan Mohan was no more the owner of the suit shop and thus Shri Madan Mohan had no right to file the present suit for eviction on the ground of his personal necessity and in the alternative it was also pleaded that the suit shop was not required by Shri Madan Mohan. This application was dismissed. The defendant tenant preferred S.B. Civil Revision No. 213/88 against his order. Ex. 12 is the certified copy of that revision. This application was dismissed. The defendant tenant preferred S.B. Civil Revision No. 213/88 against his order. Ex. 12 is the certified copy of that revision. In para 3 of this revision it was stated that after the family settlement and execution of rent note in favour of Vinai Kumar in the year 1970 the plaintiff Madan Mohan was not the landlord and since he was not the landlord he was not entitled to seek eviction on the ground of his reasonable and bonafide necessity. At page 10 of this revision petition it was reiterated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant after execution of rent note on 19-9-1970 in favour of Vinai Kumar and plaintiff cannot seek eviction of the defendant on the ground of his bonafide and reasonable necessity because there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the two. 8. One more application was submitted on behalf of the defendant tenant in the trial Court on 4-4-1989 with similar averments that after first family settlement the plaintiff Madan Mohan was no more his landlord was thus the plaintiff was not entitled to institute the present suit for eviction. 9. On the basis of the averments in these two applications and revision petition, both the Courts below arrived at this conclusion that the defendant tenant had denied the title of the landlord and thus he was liable to be evicted. 10. One of the grounds of the eviction enumerated in Section 13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act), is that where the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the landlord has not waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant. According to these provisions as contained in Section 13(1)(f) of the Act, 1950, the tenant is liable to be evicted firstly when he has renounced his character as tenant. Learned counsel for the appellant-tenant rightly submitted that the tenant has not renounced his character as such tenant. These provisions further provide that where the tenant has denied the title of the landlord, he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises unless the landlord has waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant. Learned counsel for the appellant-tenant rightly submitted that the tenant has not renounced his character as such tenant. These provisions further provide that where the tenant has denied the title of the landlord, he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises unless the landlord has waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant. In the instant case, this is not case of the tenant appellant that the landlord waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant. The main emphasis put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tenant never denied the title of the plaintiff-landlord with the intention as required by these provisions. According to learned counsel for the appellants the tenant only made this submission that in view of first family settlement between the plaintiff landlord and his family members, the suit shop came to share of the plaintiff's son Vinai Kumar and as required by Vinai Kumar plaintiff the defendant-tenant executed a rent note in favour of Vinai Kumar treating him his landlord and thus neither second family settlement was permissible under the law nor on the basis of the second family settlement the plaintiff became his landlord and thus the defendant tenant never disputed this fact that plaintiff was not the owner of the suit shop or the landlord. According to learned counsel for the appellants thus interpretation of the pleadings of the appellants defendants is in itself a substantial question of law. He placed reliance upon Santakumari v. Lakshmi Amma Janki Amma (D) by L.Rs., AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3009 , wherein it was held that construction of documents raises substantial question of law. Reliance was placed upon Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1264 , also wherein it was held as under : "Denial of landlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant is an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord and hence is a ground for eviction of tenant within the meaning of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. To amount to such denial or disclaimer, as would entail forfeiture of tenancy rights and incur the liability to be evicted, the tenant should have renounced his character as tenant and in clear and unequivocal terms set up title of the landlord in himself or in a third party. A tenant bonafide calling upon the landlord to prove this ownership or putting that landlord to proof of his title so as to protect himself (i.e. the tenant) or to earn a protection made available to him by Rent Control Law but without disowning his character of possession over the tenancy premises as tenant cannot be said to have denied the title of landlord or disclaimed the tenancy. Such an act of the tenant does not attract applicability of Section 129(1)(c) abovesaid. It is the intention of the tenant, as culled out from the nature of the plea raised by him, which is determinative of its vulnerability." 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that on the basis of the clear pleadings of the defendant-tenant, both the Courts rightly held that the defendant tenant had denied the title of the plaintiff as landlord and thus no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. 12. I have considered the rival submissions. As held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sheela's case ( AIR 2002 SC 1264 ) (supra), the tenant bonafide calling upon the landlord to prove his ownership or putting the landlord to proof of his title so as to protect himself or to earn protection made available to him without disowning his character of possession over the tenancy premises as tenant cannot be said to have denied the title of landlord. But in the instant case the averments made in application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., in the revision petition and in other application filed on 4-4-1989, the defendant tenant clearly denied the title of the plaintiff as landlord and in clear terms he set up title of Shri Vinai Kumar plaintiff's son with a specific allegation that since the plaintiff was not his landlord he cannot file the present suit for eviction on grounds of his personal necessity. I find no perversity in the concurrent decision of the Courts below on this point. I find no perversity in the concurrent decision of the Courts below on this point. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that the defendant-tenant in clear terms denied the title of the plaintiff as being his landlord and thus no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. 13. Consequently, this civil second appeal along with stay application is dismissed at the admission stage. Records of the Courts below be returned within two weeks.Appeal dismissed. *******