Judgment ( 1. ) KNOCKING the door of this Court by filing this second appeal under section 100 CPC, plaintiff has assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court allowing the appeal of tenants/respondents thereby dismissing the suit of plaintiff for eviction. ( 2. ) IN brief, the suit of plaintiff is that defendants are tenants in a shop owned by plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month. The rent is due w. e. f. 1. 7. 1992 which was not paid by the defendants despite having served notice on 1. 10. 1992 and hence the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under section 12 (1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). The suit was also filed on some other grounds but those grounds have not been found to be proved by learned trial Court. No cross-objection was filed by the plaintiff assailing the judgment of trial court and praying to decree the suit on those grounds also when first appeal was filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit. ( 3. ) DEFENDANTS by filing written statement denied the plaint averments. According to the defendants, they are not the tenants of plaintiff but the suit accommodation was given to them by late Shri Maharaj Ji. In para 1-A of the written statement it has been specifically pleaded by the defendants that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property is not in their knowledge and hence averments made in that regard in the plaint have been denied by them. Further it has been denied by the defendants that any rent is due. In para 6 of the written statement it has also been pleaded by the defendants that after the death of Shri Maharaj they are regularly paying rent to Pujari Dashrath Singh. ( 4. ) LEARNED trial Court after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of plaintiff holding the ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act to be proved, however, did not find other grounds to be proved. Eventually, the decree of eviction as well as payment of arrears of rent was passed. ( 5. ) LEARNED trial Court after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of plaintiff holding the ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act to be proved, however, did not find other grounds to be proved. Eventually, the decree of eviction as well as payment of arrears of rent was passed. ( 5. ) DEFENDANTS feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of learned trial Court filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which has been allowed and the suit of plaintiff has been dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the first appeal plaintiff did not file any cross-objection. ( 6. ) IN this manner the present second appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court. ( 7. ) THIS Court on 8. 11. 2000 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial question of law :- " Whether the finding arrived at by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff/appellant is not the landlord of the suit premises is perverse ?" ( 8. ) THE contention of Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant is that while dismissing the suit of plaintiff by learned first appellate Court, the admission made by defendants in their reply to the notice of plaintiff as well as the oral testimony have been overlooked and ignored and if that is the position, since there is an admission of defendants that they are the tenants of plaintiff, the finding arrived at by learned first appellate Court holding that defendants are not the tenants of plaintiff is perverse and the suit of plaintiff is liable to be decreed. ( 9. ) ON the other hand, Shri Bhave, learned senior counsel assisted by shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav appearing for the respondents has argued in support of the impugned judgment and has submitted that learned first appellate Court has assigned cogent reasons for dismissing the suit of plaintiff and this appeal is bereft of any substance and the same be dismissed. ( 10. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 11. ) REGARDING substantial question of law :before filing the suit, notice dated 1. 10. 1992 (Ex. P-1) was sent by plaintiff Mahant Shri Onkar Das Guru. ( 10. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 11. ) REGARDING substantial question of law :before filing the suit, notice dated 1. 10. 1992 (Ex. P-1) was sent by plaintiff Mahant Shri Onkar Das Guru. In para 1 of the notice it has been specifically mentioned that defendants are tenants of plaintiff of a shop, description whereof has been mentioned in said notice (Ex. P-1) at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month and the rent is due w. e. f. 1st July, 1992. The defendants sent reply vide Ex. D-1 and stated therein that they were always paying monthly rent to the plaintiff though it has also been stated that they are the tenants of the Trust. In his statement plaintiff Mahant onkar Das (PW-1) has categorically stated that he is the landlord and is giving shops of the temple on tenancy basis to different persons. He has specifically stated that he has given a shop to the defendants on tenancy basis. Learned appellate Court on the basis of statement of plaintiff held that he is not the landlord of the suit shop because there is a Will in his favour executed by Guru Shaligram Ji and the Will has not been filed and proved. To me, learned appellate Court has misdirected itself on this material point for the simple reason that here the enquiry of title of suit property is not being made, but it is to be seen whether relationship of landlord and tenant has been established between plaintiff and defendants. ( 12. ) DEFENDANT Rajkumar (DW-1) has admitted that he sent reply of the notice (Ex. D-1) to plaintiffs counsel against notice of plaintiff Ex. P-1. In para 13 of his deposition he has stated that he offered to plaintiff to accord him permission to construct the suit shop pucca by enhancing the rate of rent. Further he has stated that he is ready to enhance rent. In para 14 further he has stated that whatever enhanced rate of rent shall be offered by plaintiff Mahant Onkar Das, he will accept. Thus, according to me, there is a clear admission of defendants and can be validly inferred that they are the tenants of plaintiff. ( 13. ) LEARNED appellate Court has given much weightage that defendants were paying rent to one Dashrath. Thus, according to me, there is a clear admission of defendants and can be validly inferred that they are the tenants of plaintiff. ( 13. ) LEARNED appellate Court has given much weightage that defendants were paying rent to one Dashrath. At this juncture it would be relevant to see explanation of plaintiff in this regard. In para 11 of his deposition he has explained that whenever he (plaintiff) goes out of station, he authorises Dashrath Das to collect rent and if the defendants were paying rent to Dashrath Das, it was on account of the authority of plaintiff Mahant onkar Das. In para 9 of the statement of plaintiff it has come that dashrath is the Pujari of the temple and this has also been admitted by defendant Rajkumar (DW-1) in para 8 of his deposition. ( 14. ) IT can be inferred from the above-said material placed on record, the defendants are the tenants of plaintiff since there is an admission of defendant. The Supreme Court in Chitra Kumari (Smt) v. Union of india and others (2001) 2 SCC 208 has held that the admission is a relevant piece of evidence if not explained away. In this context I may further place reliance on Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others AIR 1960 SC 100 wherein it has been held in para 11 that an admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. ( 15. ) APART from this in a very specific manner it has been pleaded by the plaintiff in para 1-A of the plaint that he is the owner of the suit property. The defendants in their written statement in para 1-A have pleaded whether plaintiff is owner of the suit property, is not in their knowledge and hence denied. To me, this amounts to admission as envisaged under order VIII Rule 3 and 5 CPC. In this context I may profitably place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Jahuri Sah v. D. P. Jhunjhunwala AIR 1967 SC 109 and Division Bench decision of this court Dhanbai v. State of M. P. and others 1978 JLJ 879 . To me, this amounts to admission as envisaged under order VIII Rule 3 and 5 CPC. In this context I may profitably place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Jahuri Sah v. D. P. Jhunjhunwala AIR 1967 SC 109 and Division Bench decision of this court Dhanbai v. State of M. P. and others 1978 JLJ 879 . Thus the defendants are also admitting the ownership of plaintiff, and if that is the position, it cannot be said that plaintiff who is the owner of suit property is not the landlord of defendants. For all practical purposes it is hereby held that the defendants are the tenants of plaintiff. ( 16. ) THE substantial question of law is thus answered that the finding arrived at by the learned first appellate Court that the plaintiff/appellant is not the landlord of the suit premises is perverse. ( 17. ) EVENTUALLY, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court is hereby set aside and that of learned trial Court is restored. The respondents shall bear the cost of the appellant. Counsels fee Rs. 2,000/-, if pre-certified. ( 18. ) AT the last, learned counsel for the respondents submits that some breathing time may be allowed to the respondents to vacate the suit premises. This prayer has been vigorously opposed by learned counsel for the appellant. However, looking to the facts and circumstances, it is hereby directed that respondents shall vacate the suit premises on or before 30th November, 2008. The respondents shall submit an undertaking in the trial Court in that regard on or before 31st March, 2008. The respondents/defendants are further directed to deposit cost of the two Courts below as well as of this Court and also the entire rent, if any due, in the trial Court on or before 30th April, 2008 and shall continue to deposit monthly rent in terms of section 13 (1) of the Act. It is further made clear that if any of the condition is violated by the defendants, the plaintiff shall be free to get the decree executed to 30. 11. 2008.