JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-tenant against the decree for eviction which has been passed on the ground of denial of title. The suit was based upon the plea of denial of title as in an earlier proceeding in the execution, the defendant-tenant-appellant had submitted an application which has been produced in evidence as Exhibit-3 wherein the appellant-tenant denied the title of the landlord and this was not condoned by the landlord and the suit was filed upon the aforesaid denial of title. 3. The two courts below have construed the application filed by the defendant-tenant-appellant (Exhibit-3) and the learned trial court based upon the same arrived at the following findings:- " ijUrq oknhx.k o izfroknhx.k ds chp fu.khZr iwoZ nkos esa btjk; dk;Zokgh esa izfroknhx.k }kjk fn;s x;s izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ&3 esa ;g Li"V ladsr gS fd oknxzLr nqdku f'kdeh nsus dk dksbZ dkuwuh gd ugha Fkk izkFkhZ lh/ks ljdkj ls fdjk;snkj gSA bl izdkj bl izkFkZuk i= esa izfroknh us Li"Vr;k oknhx.k ds Hkw&Lokeh ds LoR; ls bUdkj fd;k gSA izn'kZ&3 U;k;ky; ds fjdkMZ ls izkIr dh xbZ izekf.kr izfrfyfi gS ftlds lEcU/k esa oknh lkf{k;ksa ls izfroknh dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ ftjg ugha dh xbZ gS tks izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ&3 ds vfLrRo ds ckjs esa lUnsg mRiUu djsA oknh pUnzHkku ih0MCY;w&1 us vius l'kiFk c;kuksa esa dFku fd;k gS fd btjk; esa cztyky dh tkfuo tks nj] is'k dh xbZ mldh udy is'k dh gS o izn'kZ&3 gS ijUrq izfroknh dh vkSj ls bl lEcU/k esa bl xokg ls dksbZ izfrijh{kk ugha dh xbZ gSA vr% orZeku ds izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, esjh fouez jk; esa oknhx.k o izfroknh ds chp iwoZ okn dh btjk; esa izfroknh dh vksj ls fn;s x;s izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ&3 ds vk/kkj ij ;g Hkyh HkkWafr lkfcr gS fd izfroknh us oknh dks Hkw&Lokeh ekuus ls bUdkj fd;k gSA " 4. The learned appellate court while dealing with the aforesaid question has again based its findings on the question of denial of title while construing the Exhibit-3, the objections raised by the defendant-tenant. The learned appellate court while dealing with the aforesaid question has again based its findings on the question of denial of title while construing the Exhibit-3, the objections raised by the defendant-tenant. The learned appellate court had held as follows:- " orZeku ekeys esa vihykFkhZ@izfroknh ds }kjk izLrqr fd, x, izfrokn&i= dh pj.k la0&11 esa mlus fooknxzLr tk;nkn dks eafnj Jh NksVsjketh dh fefYd;r dh gksdj nsoLFkku foHkkx ds v/khu vkrh gSA ,slk vfHkdFku fd;k gS rFkk izn'kZ&3 esa blus Lo;a dks oknh@izR;FkhZ dk fdjk;snkj ugha eku dj ljdkj ds fdjk;snkj gksuk ekuk gS vkSj ;g fy[kk gS fd ljdkj gh mlls jde ysus dh gdnkj gSA " 5. A look at the above passage in the judgment goes to show that in the earlier proceedings, the defendant-tenant filed his objections which are produced as Exhibit-3 in the present suit and which were the basis for the ground of denial of title on which the landlord sought eviction of the tenant. As per the averments made in the said application, the tenant-appellant contended that the shop in question belongs to the State Government and he is the tenant of the State Government and the landlord had no right to give the same on sub-tenancy to the tenant-appellant. In the present case, based upon the objections which were taken by the defendant-tenant by means of Exhibit-3 while controverting the averments made in the plaint, no doubt the tenant-appellant has taken a stand in some of the paragraphs in the written statement that he was inducted as a tenant @ Rs. 50/- per month by the plaintiff-landlord but at the same time in the written statement undoubtedly the tenant has disputed the right of the landlord to file the present suit. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheela and Others v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, reported in 2002 WLC (SC) Civil 281 : (2002) 3 SCC 375 , A.V.G.P. Chettiar and Sons and Others v. T. Palanisamy Gounder reported in (2002) 5 SCC 337 ; and Devasahayam (Dead) by LRs. v. P. Savithramma and Others reported in 2005(2) WLC (SC) Civil 669 : (2005) 7 SCC 653 . 7. v. P. Savithramma and Others reported in 2005(2) WLC (SC) Civil 669 : (2005) 7 SCC 653 . 7. The learned counsel for the appellant laid great stress on the case of Sheela and Others (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court construed the pleadings of the tenant in para 18 of the said report which may be quoted here as under : "Yes, I am a tenant in the suit premises, I have paid the rent to you (and I may continue to do so); but before you may be held entitled to a decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, in order to protect myself from eviction, call upon you to satisfy the court and let me also be satisfied if you are the owner of the suit premises." 8. A look at the above passage which was relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a bonafide plea on the part of the tenant is certainly not the case of the present appellant-tenant. 9. In the present case, as has been held by the courts below, vide Exhibit-3 the tenant-appellant had specifically denied the title of the landlord, the right of the landlord to induct the appellant as sub-tenant and to recover the rent and also at the same time asserted that the title was that of the State Government. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have been relied upon are based upon the fact that if the tenant bonafidely raises the plea and doubts the right of the landlord in that event the said plea of denial of title would not be available to the landlord. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, however, in the light of the pleadings in the written statement and in the Exhibit-3, the element of bonafide is lacking. It was specifically in the knowledge of the appellant-tenant that the premises was in the ownership of Murti Shri Chhotey Ramji which has been taken on rent by the plaintiff and the shop was constructed by the plaintiff who had taken the land on rent from the owner and on the said land after construction of the shop rented it out to the tenant-appellant @ Rs. 50/- per month. 50/- per month. In the light of the aforesaid facts which he has now admitted in his written statement but he has still disputed the right of the landlord-plaintiff not only to recover the rent but also to let the premises on sub-tenancy to the tenant-appellant and to recover the possession thereof on account of the grounds taken in the suit. 11. In the fact of the above, more particularly, the pleadings in the written statement in para 11 and the basis of the suit being Exhibit-3, the earlier application submitted by the tenant-appellant where the title of the landlord was denied and which the landlord did not condone and made it the basis of the suit after the objection was overruled, it cannot be said that the present case of bonafide plea on the part of the tenant whose objections had been overruled. Thus, the present case is clearly distinguishable on facts as it lacks bonafides. 12. There being concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts after appreciation of material available on record with regard to the plea of denial of title, I am not included to interfere with the judgments passed by the two learned courts below. 13. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. 14. Consequently, the second appeal as well as the stay application stand dismissed summarily.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******