JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the judgment and decree for eviction passed in favour of landlord by the Courts below in concurrent manner. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a suit was instituted by Mohammad Nazir Khan (predecessor of respondents) for eviction and arrears of rent in respect of the suit premises situated on first floor as described in paragraph 1 and 2 of the plaint and shown in red colour in the plaint map. Defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by the plaintiff on rent @ Rs. 30 p.m. Rent was paid up to 31-12-1980. Thereafter, since the respondent was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-1-1981, a notice of demand vide Ex-P/1 dated 9-10-1986 was issued by registered post. It was served upon the defendant on 13-10-1986. Despite this notice, defendant did neither pay whole of the arrears of rent nor tender it. Consequently, plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction on ground under section 12(1)(a) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and arrears of rent for a period of three years preceding institution of the suit. After institution of the suit, present respondents were substituted in place of original plaintiff on account of his death. 3. Defendant/appellant submitted written statement, stating therein that he had obtained the suit premises on rent @ Rs. 30/-p.m. from the original plaintiff. However, house comprising the suit premises was put to auction by the Court which was purchased by him jointly with Nanhi Bai for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the year 1980. Entire money was deposited by him and Nanhi Bai in the Court. Sale certificate was awaited on account of stay granted by the Court. Second Appeal No. 221/1986 was pending before this Court, at the time of submission of written statement. On account of purchase, relationship of tenant and landlord between the plaintiff and defendant ceased to exist and the suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 30-1-1992. Appeal preferred against it was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24-7-1996. On account of purchase, relationship of tenant and landlord between the plaintiff and defendant ceased to exist and the suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 30-1-1992. Appeal preferred against it was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24-7-1996. Aggrieved by it, appellant preferred Second Appeal No. 277/1996 which was partly allowed and the matter was remitted back to the lower appellate Court in the following manner: So far as the bonafide on the part of the appellant to not to deposit the rent is concerned, it is pleaded that Ahmed Ali appellant had purchased the property in an auction sale. He had deposited 1/4h of the bid money amounting to Rs. 10,000/- on 24th of December, 1980 and a further amount of Rs. 30,000/- in the Court on 9th of January, 1981 in an execution case. He submits that on account of a decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1540/91 decided on 5th of July, 1995, the auction sale made in his favour was set at naught. This, according to him, would be another factor which should have been taken note of by the first appellate Court. There appears to be some justification in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The matter is, accordingly, remanded to the first appellate Court who would re-decide the matter in the light of the facts indicated above. The question as to whether delay is to be condoned or not would of course be a matter which would be within the discretion of the first appellate Court but then this discretion is to be exercised judiciously. 5. In the meantime, auction in favour of the defendant/appellant was set aside by this Court on 5-7-1995 in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991 which came into notice of the defendant on 20th July, 1995. On the next date i.e. 21st July, 1995, the entire arrears of rent were deposited with an averment that the defendant having deposited the entire bid amount as the highest bidder in the auction, was under an impression that he was not required to pay/deposit the rent. Since the auction was finally set aside on 5-7-1995, defendant was consequently prepared to pay/deposit the rent. Since the auction was finally set aside on 5-7-1995, defendant was consequently prepared to pay/deposit the rent. Thus, action of the defendant was bona fide and the delay in depositing the rent deserved to be condoned. However, the application of defendant was rejected by the lower appellate Court and ultimately, the appeal preferred by him has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 7-7-1999. Learned lower appellate Court also granted a decree for eviction under section 12(1)(c) on the ground that defendant had denied the relationship and had setup title in himself. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present appeal has been preferred, which was initially admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether only on the ground of delay in the facts and circumstances of the present case an application under section 13(1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act is illegally rejected by the Courts below?, 7. On 21-07-09, additional following substantial questions of law were also formulated: i. Whether a decree for eviction on ground under section 12(1)(c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 could have been granted in the present case without there being pleadings and prayer for eviction on such ground? ii. Whether the denial of title in the facts and circumstances of the present case is bona fide and that whether a decree for eviction under section 12(1)(c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is sustainable in the present set of facts and circumstances ? 8. Thereafter, both the parties have been heard on all the substantial questions of law. 9. It is not in dispute in the present case that the suit premises was obtained by the defendant from the original plaintiff on rent and rent was paid by him up to 31-12-1980. Further it was not in dispute that the house comprising the suit premises was put to auction and defendant being the highest bidder had deposited the entire bid money to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- Auction was ultimately set aside by this Court on 5-7-1995 in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991. On coming to know of the same on 20h July, 1995, the defendant immediately on the next day deposited the entire arrears of rent. 40,000/- Auction was ultimately set aside by this Court on 5-7-1995 in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991. On coming to know of the same on 20h July, 1995, the defendant immediately on the next day deposited the entire arrears of rent. It is further not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that there did not occur any subsequent default in the matter of deposit of rent in the Court. This being so, an application under section 13(2) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was submitted before the lower appellate Court with specific averments that the defendant in the facts and circumstances of the case entertained a bona fide belief that he had become owner of the suit premises and was not required to pay the rent due to cessation of relationship of landlord and tenant on account of purchase of house in the Court auction. After quashment of the auction proceedings, defendant has admitted himself as tenant and after depositing the rent, submitted an application that the delay in deposit may be condoned. This application was opposed by the plaintiff/respondents on the ground that no sale certificate was issued in favour of the defendant and, consequently, he had not acquired title. He was obviously liable to pay rent which having not been paid/deposited within time, there was no justification for condonation. 10. Undoubtedly, Court has power to condone the delay in deposit and keeping the same in mind this Court vide order dated 11-9-1996 in Second Appeal No. 277/1996 had directed the lower appellate Court to consider the question as to whether the delay is to be condoned or not in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao vs. Naragani Govinda Sehararao and another, AIR 1989 SC 2185 has observed that it may be noticed that in a case where a tenant has defaulted to pay or tender the rent, he is entitled to an opportunity to pay or tender the same if his default is not wilful. It has further been observed that an act is said to be wilful if it is intentional, conscious and deliberate. 12. In the present case it is undisputed that the defendant had participated in the auction proceedings and had deposited the entire bid amount of Rs. It has further been observed that an act is said to be wilful if it is intentional, conscious and deliberate. 12. In the present case it is undisputed that the defendant had participated in the auction proceedings and had deposited the entire bid amount of Rs. 40,000/-being the highest bid to purchase the entire house including the suit premises. Issuance of sale certificate was alone awaited, which could not be issued due to stay of proceedings. Further on account of being the highest bidder and further having deposited the entire bid amount (auction money), defendant was under an impression that he had become owner of the suit premises and was not required to pay/deposit the rent. He entertained a bona fide belief that his relationship with the plaintiff ceased to exist as that of tenant and landlord and that he had become owner of the suit premises. It is not disputed that auction was ultimately set aside by this Court on 5-7-1995 in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991, which came in notice of the defendant on 20th July, 1995. If the defendant entertained a bona fide belief until setting aside of auction that he had become owner of the suit premises due to deposit of amount of his highest bid in the Court, it cannot be said outrightly unjustified for an ordinary man, who participated in the Court auction, made an offer for the highest bid and deposited pursuant thereto the total bid money. Defendant entertained the belief that he had become owner of the auctioned property. Technicality like issuance of sale certificate may not come in his way to entertain the belief about having acquired title of the property so long as the deposit of the entire bid amount made by him in the Court is retained by the Court itself and not withdrawn by the depositor. Learned counsel for the respondents has been unable to point out any mala fide on the part of defendant/appellant more so, when the entire money deposited in the Court pursuant to the auction proceedings was with the Court and not withdrawn. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakapalli (supra) has observed: "In the present case, it is not in dispute that the tenant did not pay the rent from December, 1977 to May 1978 before the institution of the suit. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakapalli (supra) has observed: "In the present case, it is not in dispute that the tenant did not pay the rent from December, 1977 to May 1978 before the institution of the suit. Under the eviction notice served on him in December, 1977 he was called upon to pay the rent from December, 1977 only. The appellant-tenant did not pay or tender the rent from December, 1977 to May 1978 not because he had no desire to pay the rent to the respondents but because he bona fide believed that he was entitled to purchase the property under the oral agreement of 14th October, 1977. He had also paid Rs. 5,000/- by way of earnest under the said oral agreement. True it is, his suit for specific performance of the said oral agreement has since been dismissed but he has filed an appeal which is pending. He, therefore, bona fide believed that he was entitled to purchase the property under the said oral agreement and since he had already paid Rs. 5,000/-by way of earnest thereunder he was under no obligation to pay the rent to the respondents. In order to secure eviction for non-payment of rent, it must be shown that the default was intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious with full knowledge of its consequences. Here is a tenant who felt that even though he had invested Rs. 5,000/- as earnest the vendor has sold the property to the respondents in total disregard of his right to purchase the same. This is not a case of tenant who has failed to pay the rent without any rhyme or reason. He was not averse to paying the rent but he genuinely believed, that he was under no obligation to do so as he had a prior right to purchase the property. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a case in which the controller should have invoked the proviso and called upon the appellant to pay the arrears from December, 1977 to May, 1978 within a certain time. Failure to do so has resulted in miscarriage of justice." 14. In the case of Rakapalli (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a tenant who having paid a sum of Rs. Failure to do so has resulted in miscarriage of justice." 14. In the case of Rakapalli (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a tenant who having paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money under an oral agreement of purchase, entertained a belief that he was entitled to purchase the property under the said oral agreement and since he had already paid Rs. 5,000/- by way of earnest thereunder he was under no obligation to pay the rent. Supreme Court found that his belief/impression was genuine and bona fide that he was under no obligation to pay the rent as he had a prior right to purchase the property. The case in hand is on far-far better footing. Defendant/appellant had participated in the auction proceedings conducted by the Court and had offered a highest bid for purchasing the property which included the suit premises. His highest bid was accepted and consequently, he deposited the entire bid amount. Despite there being objections to auction proceedings he did not withdraw the money which was deposited by him pursuant to acceptance of his highest bid. It was only on 5-7-1995 that this Court in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991 set aside the auction proceedings. There is nothing wrong or mala fide on his part if he entertained genuinely the belief that his highest bid having been accepted by the Court he became owner of the suit premises and was not required to pay/deposit the rent. Had there been no quashment of auction proceedings by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991, his belief would have been converted into reality. Supreme Court in the case of Rakapalli (supra) has held that it must be shown by the plaintiff/landlord that the default on the part of defendant/tenant was intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious with full knowledge of its consequences. In the present case since the auction proceedings were upheld by the Courts below until stage of High Court, it cannot be said that denial of relationship as well as title in the light of Court auction was not bona fide. It is not expected from the defendant that despite of being the highest bidder and despite making deposit of total bid money, he would treat himself merely a tenant. Any contrary construction would not allow the defendant/tenant even to take appropriate defence based on true state of affairs. 15. It is not expected from the defendant that despite of being the highest bidder and despite making deposit of total bid money, he would treat himself merely a tenant. Any contrary construction would not allow the defendant/tenant even to take appropriate defence based on true state of affairs. 15. Applying the aforesaid yardsticks, it may be seen that the defendant/appellant was the highest bidder in the proceedings for auction of the entire house comprising the suit premises. He had deposited the entire bid amount and had not withdrawn it until auction proceedings were set aside by this Court on 5-7-1995 in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991. When the defendant came to know about setting aside of auction, he deposited whole of the arrears of rent expressing thereby that he was prepared to accept the plaintiff as landlord. Thus, his denial at early stages before setting aside of auction does not amount to denial of title within the meaning of section 12(1)(c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that the defendant/appellant entertained the bona fide belief that he was under no obligation to pay or deposit the rent due to his purchase in auction. Learned lower appellate Judge has rejected the application for condonation ignoring the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rakapalli (supra). 16. Thus, it is found that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the application for condonation submitted before the lower appellate Court stands allowed and the delay stands condoned. Substantial question of law No. 1 is decided in favour of defendant/appellant. 17. Since it is not disputed before me that defendant has not committed any other default, decree under section 12(1)(a) of the Act is not sustainable in law and the same is hereby set aside giving benefit of section 12(3) and section 13(5) of the Act. 18. As regards other two substantial questions of law, it may be seen that the plaintiff has not pleaded in specific in the plaint ground for eviction under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. 18. As regards other two substantial questions of law, it may be seen that the plaintiff has not pleaded in specific in the plaint ground for eviction under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. However, it is true that the defendant/appellant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and had setup title in himself but it cannot be equally ignored that the title was claimed by him on the strength of auction proceedings in which he participated to purchase the entire house (which included suit premises). He was adjudged the highest bidder and was required to deposit the entire bid money. He had deposited the total money amounting to Rs. 40,000/- which was not withdrawn until auction proceedings were set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991. At the time of submission of written statement, challenge to the said proceeding was pending and the defendant/appellant cannot be said to be at fault in taking a plea which was based on Court auction. 19. Undisputedly, as civil Court proceeds on pleadings, the plaintiff after having been supplied a copy of written statement could have conveniently amended the plaint and added the ground under section 12(1)(c). Normally a decree for eviction on ground under section 12(1)(c) cannot be granted without pleadings which are required to be established by evidence. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in the case of Majoti Subbarao vs. P.V.K. Krishna Rao, 1990(1) M.P. W.N. 192 wherein it is held that it is not necessary that denial of title must be anterior to the proceedings for eviction and the landlord may take advantage of this ground in the same proceeding in which title is denied. In the case of Majoti Subbarao (supra) it may be seen that the defendant in his written statement had denied title. Plaintiff thereafter filed a rejoinder that his title has been denied with no bona fide and tenant is liable to be evicted also on the ground of denial of title of the landlord. 21. In the present case although stand of defendant has been since beginning that he had purchased the suit premises in auction and had become its owner, plaintiff did not choose to amend the plaint to add the ground of eviction under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. 21. In the present case although stand of defendant has been since beginning that he had purchased the suit premises in auction and had become its owner, plaintiff did not choose to amend the plaint to add the ground of eviction under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The trial Court had not raised issue for eviction on ground under section 12(1)(c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. 22. However, from the perusal of impugned judgment, it is clear that eviction of the defendant/appellant was also sought on ground under section 12(1)(c) during arguments before the lower appellate Court. Both the parties had made rival contentions in respect of eviction on ground under section 12(1)(c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. Defendant was fully aware that the plaintiff was seeking eviction on the said ground in view of the defence raised by the defendant himself in his written statement. Allowing the plaintiff to seek eviction on a ground is altogether different from existence of the said ground. Defendant/appellant cannot be said to have been surprised by allowing the plaintiff to seek eviction on the said ground because the submissions made by plaintiff were duly countered by the defendant/appellant's learned counsel. This being so, the substantial question of law No. 1 dated 21-7-2009 is answered in the manner that the lower appellate Court has not acted illegally in considering the claim of plaintiff for eviction on ground under section 12(1)(c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act on the basis of the pleadings of defendant himself. 23. Now coming to substantial question of law No. 2 dated 21-7-2009, it is observed that this Court has already in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rakapalli (supra) found that defendant had participated in the auction proceedings and was adjudged as the highest bidder in the proceedings for auction of entire house which included the suit premises. He deposited the entire bid amount of Rs. 40,000/- within time. Objections to auction were not accepted in the Courts below and issuance of sale certificate alone was awaited which could not be issued on account of stay granted by this Court. He deposited the entire bid amount of Rs. 40,000/- within time. Objections to auction were not accepted in the Courts below and issuance of sale certificate alone was awaited which could not be issued on account of stay granted by this Court. At that time defendant had a right to entertain a bona fide belief that he had become owner of the suit premises on account of having been purchased by him in the Court auction and was not required to pay/deposit the rent. Auction proceedings were set aside on 5-7-1995 in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991. When the defendant came to know about quashment of auction proceedings, he deposited whole of the arrears of rent expressing thereby that he was prepared to accept the plaintiff as landlord. Had there been no quashment of auction proceedings his bona fide belief would have got converted into the reality. He did not insist to continue with his denial after auction proceedings were set aside by this Court. On the contrary he thereafter, immediately, accepted the plaintiff as landlord in view of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1540/1991. 24. The Apex Court in the case of C. Chandramohan vs, Sengottaiyan (dead) by LRs. and others, (2000) 1 SCC 451 held that landlord in order to seek eviction on the ground of denial of title by a tenant must establish twin requirements (i) denial by a tenant of title of landlord and (ii) that such denial was not bona fide. In the instant case, it has already been held that denial made by the tenant for the time being was bona fide, since he had deposited the entire bid amount in the auction which was ultimately set aside by this Court. 25. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, denial on the part of defendant/appellant at early stages before setting aside of auction does not amount to denial of title within the meaning of section 12(1)(c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Learned lower Appellate Court has granted the decree on ground under section 12(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the bona fide of defendant and further overlooked the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Rakapalli 's case. This being so, decree of eviction under section 12(1)(c) is also not found sustainable in law and the same is hereby set aside. This being so, decree of eviction under section 12(1)(c) is also not found sustainable in law and the same is hereby set aside. Substantial question of law No. 2 dated 21-7-2009 is hereby decided in favour of the defendant/appellant. 26. In the result, appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost throughout. Appeal allowed.