JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14-9-2004 passed by VIII ADJ, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 6/04 whereby the judgment dated 24-12-2003 passed by III Civil Judge class-II, Indore whereby the decree of eviction was passed against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 3-2-2005 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether by denying derivative title, Appellant had incurred a liability for eviction under Section 12(1)(c) of the M P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961? 2. Whether the pleadings in the written statement constitute disclaimer of title? 3. Short facts of the case are that Respondent filed a suit for eviction on 6-1-2003 against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(a), (c), (e) and (h) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "the Act") alleging that Appellant is in occupation of a house bearing No. 1/2, Lane No. 6, Parsi Mohalla, Indore. It was alleged that suit property has been purchased by the Respondent vide registered sale deed dated 26-9-1991. It was alleged that suit accommodation in which the Appellant is in occupation is measuring 10 x 40 fts. It was alleged that Appellant is tenant from the time of Mr. Khar, predecessor-in-title of the Respondent. It was alleged that after purchase of the suit property, the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent got the Appellant acquainted with the fact of sale and directed the Appellant to pay rent to the Respondent ' Rs. 200/- per month. It was further alleged that Appellant was paying the rent to the Respondent regularly but lateron in collusion with other tenants i.e. Munnibai and other tenants, Appellant is claiming to be owner of the suit accommodation and has stopped the payment of rent w.e.f. 1-7-2001 which has not been paid in spite of notice of demand dated 23-11-2002 which was refused by the Appellant. It was alleged that Respondent requires the suit accommodation for the residence of members of his family for which no other suitable accommodation is available to the Respondent. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing the written statement wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that Appellant was ever tenant ' Rs. 200/-per month. It was prayed that decree of eviction be passed. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing the written statement wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that Appellant was ever tenant ' Rs. 200/-per month. It was alleged that Appellant was tenant ' Rs. 50/- p.m. It was further alleged that no relationship of landlord and tenant has been established between the Appellant and Respondent. It was alleged that burden to prove that Respondent is owner of the suit accommodation is on the Respondent. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, however suit filed on other grounds was dismissed. In Appeal filed by the Appellant the decree was maintained, against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. Mr. Yogesh Saxena, learned Counsel for Appellant argued at length and submits that impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal and deserve to be set aside. It is submitted that in the reply notice Appellant asked the Respondent to produce the sale deed on the basis of which the Respondent is claiming title over the suit property but in spite of that document was not tendered to the Appellant. Learned Counsel further submits that since there was no atornment between the Appellant and Respondent and there was no documentary evidence to the effect that Appellant was ever paying the rent ' Rs. 200/- p.m. to the Respondent, learned Courts below committed error in passing the decree under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Balveer Singh v. Kishanlal: AIR 1988 M.P. 227 wherein it is held that tenant's bona fide acts to protect his interest do not amount to disclaimer. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Kundan Mal v. Gurudatta 1989 MPRCJ 111 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the tenant denying the title of the landlord but did not claim title in himself, therefore denial of title by the tenant is ambiguous and tenant is not liable for eviction. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Iqbal Ahmad v. Mohammad Sami 1989 MPRCJ 164 wherein this Court has held that disclaimer of derivative title cannot be a ground of eviction. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Iqbal Ahmad v. Mohammad Sami 1989 MPRCJ 164 wherein this Court has held that disclaimer of derivative title cannot be a ground of eviction. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Santosh Kumar v. Biran ' Virendra Chouhan 1990 MPRCJ NOC 39, wherein predecessor-in-title of landlord not informing the tenant in respect of sale of the disputed property and tenant is denying title of vendee-landlord due to lack of knowledge of transfer of property, this Court held that such denial does not make out ground of disclaimer. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Khuman Singh v. Nathuram 1991 JLJ 348 wherein in a case tenant denying derivative title of the landlord, this Court has held that no decree can be passed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. It was further held that tenant cannot deny title of landlord who inducted him in the tenanted premises. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Nirvikar Gupta v. Ram Kumar AIR 1992 MP 115 wherein it was held that tenant denying landlord's title bona fide with object of seeking title established in Court, charge of disclaimer is not attracted. Further, reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Girraj Kishore v. Kamla Bai : 2001 (1) MPLJ 361 : 2001(1) MPHT 286 wherein this Court has held that simple disclaimer of derivative title does not constitute a ground of eviction. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of V.K. Munshi v. Raipur Co-operative Housing Society Limited: 2001 (1) MPHT 514 wherein this Court has held that the tenant cannot be permitted to deny the title of the original lessor. Similarly, he cannot be permitted to deny the derivative title of a reversioner if he has attorned to him. However, if he has not attorned to him or if he has not paid any rent to him, he can certainly deny the derivative title of a reversioner. To this extent a tenant can deny the title within these permissible limits. Similarly, he can also contend as against the original lessor that he has ceased to be his landlord because of some subsequent transfer. These are the permissible limits where the estoppel will not be applied as against the tenant. To this extent a tenant can deny the title within these permissible limits. Similarly, he can also contend as against the original lessor that he has ceased to be his landlord because of some subsequent transfer. These are the permissible limits where the estoppel will not be applied as against the tenant. There can be no doubt that if a tenant denies the title of his landlord outside the permissible limits, he should forfeit his tenancy, as he cannot be permitted to deny his landlord's title unless he has delivered back possession to the landlord openly. Learned Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal be allowed and impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 5. Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in decreeing the suit under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Learned Counsel submits that suit property was purchased by the Respondent in the year 1991 while the suit was filed in the year 2003. It is submitted that before issuance of notice, all through the rent was paid by the Appellant to the Respondent. It is also submitted that after submission of documents relating to the title also in the witness box Appellant has specifically stated that still the Appellant is not accepting himself as tenant of the Respondent. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Courts below committed no error in passing the decree of eviction against the Appellant. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Ghulam Mohammad v. Poonam Chand 1969 MPLJ 843 wherein this Court has held that tenant disclaiming landlord's title, is liable to be evicted. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Neeraj v. Smt. Amrit Kaur 1973 MPLJ 386 wherein tenant not paying rent to Plaintiff who purchased house from previous landlord and setting up title in a third party claiming that he had an agreement of sale with that third party, this Court has held that tenant's act likely affect adversely and substantially landlord's interest. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Balveersingh v. Kishanlal: AIR 1988 MP 225 wherein Division Bench of this Court held that disclaimer means renunciation by tenant of his character as such by setting up title in third person or in himself. Mere disclaimer sufficient to entitle landlord to a decree for eviction without proving further that such disclaimer affects his interest adversely and substantially. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Giriraj Kishore v. Kamla Bai 2001 (1) MPLJ 361 wherein in a case of denial of title by Defendant tenant for want of knowledge of the purchase of suit accommodation by Plaintiff-landlord from the original landlord and conduct of the Defendant and evidence afforded by him clearly indicating that he had accepted the Plaintiff to be the landlord and he was having full knowledge of transfer and he had received the notice, it was held that there was no justification on the part Defendant to deny the derivative title of the Plaintiff after accepting her as landlord. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Giriraj Kishore v. Kamla Bai 2001 (1) MPLJ 361 wherein denial of title by Defendant tenant for want of knowledge of the purchase of suit accommodation by Plaintiff-landlord from the original landlord, this Court has held that conduct of Defendant and evidence afforded by him clearly indicating that he had accepted the Plaintiff to be the landlord and he was having full knowledge of transfer and he had received the notice, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the Defendant to deny the derivative title of the Plaintiff after accepting her as landlord. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances, appeal be dismissed. 6. From perusal of record it is evident that to prove the case Respondent has filed the document Ex.P/1 to P/7. Ex.P/1 is power of attorney which was given by the Respondent to her son. Ex.P/2 is sale deed dated 26-9-1991 whereby suit property was purchased by the Respondent from P. M. Khar. Ex.P/3 is receipt of the Municipal Corporation. Ex.P/4 is the notice. Ex.P/5 is the reply. Ex.P/7 is ration-card. Ex.P/1 is power of attorney which was given by the Respondent to her son. Ex.P/2 is sale deed dated 26-9-1991 whereby suit property was purchased by the Respondent from P. M. Khar. Ex.P/3 is receipt of the Municipal Corporation. Ex.P/4 is the notice. Ex.P/5 is the reply. Ex.P/7 is ration-card. Apart from this Respondent has examined Pushpendra Bansal as PW-1, Ramdeo Garg as PW-2 and Rajendra Garg as PW-3 while in rebuttal, Appellant has produced the diary Ex.D/1 and has examined himself as DW-1 and Taradevi as DW-2. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law it is evident that the tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord, but in case of derivative title tenant can certainly deny the title of the purchaser/Plaintiff if he has no knowledge about the sale transaction and if he has not attorned the tenancy. In the present case, case of the Respondent is that the Respondent purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 26-9-1991, while the suit was filed on 6-1-2003. In the sale deed there is recital of the seller that actual physical possession has been given to the Respondent purchaser. In the plaint it is alleged that the rent was being paid by the Appellant to the Respondent up to 31-5-2001. There is nothing on record in shape of documentary evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the rent was ever paid to the Respondent. In the reply notice Ex.P/5 Appellant has not denied his status as tenant, but asked the Respondent to produce the document whereby the suit property has been purchased, but the same was not provided to the Appellant. In reply notice it was also alleged by the Appellant that the owner of the house was Mr. Khar, who has never intimated to the Appellant that the suit property has been sold to the Respondent. 8. Now looking into the oral evidence adduced by the Respondent, the only evidence adduced by the Respondent is that attornment took place in presence of witnesses Ramdas and Rajendra Dosi. Respondent has not stated any thing about the said attornment. Rajendra Dosi and Ramdas has not stated in their examination-in-chief that on what date attornment took place. PW/2 Ramdas has admitted that Respondent Kesharbai is his mother-in-law. As against this, Appellant has examined himself and has stated that Appellant is the tenant ' Rs. Respondent has not stated any thing about the said attornment. Rajendra Dosi and Ramdas has not stated in their examination-in-chief that on what date attornment took place. PW/2 Ramdas has admitted that Respondent Kesharbai is his mother-in-law. As against this, Appellant has examined himself and has stated that Appellant is the tenant ' Rs. 15/- per month. It is specifically denied that any attornment took place. No suggestion was given to the Appellant that attornment took place in presence of witnesses i.e. PW/2 and PW/3. It is true that in his cross-examination Appellant has stated that still Appellant is not accepting that the Respondent is his landlord, but by this piece of evidence no decree of eviction can be passed against the Appellant under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Firstly, because the status of Respondent is landlord on the basis of sale deed upon which Respondent is testing his claim, has yet to be adjudicated. Secondly, if the Appellant is denying the title after full knowledge of the ownership of the landlord, then the Appellant is entitled to take appropriate defence. If on the basis of cross-examination made to the Appellant the decree of eviction is to be passed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, then it will be against the principles of natural justice as Appellant will have no occasion to establish in what circumstance Appellant has denied the title. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Appellant was within permissible limit in not disputing his status as tenant and asking the Respondent to produce the documentary evidence about his title as landlord. This Court is also of the view that the findings of the learned Courts below relating to attornment of the tenancy are perverse. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that by denying the derivative title Appellant has incurred no liability for eviction under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed and the suit filed by the Respondent stands dismissed. No order as to costs.