JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.3.2009 passed by II Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Appeal No. 29-A/08, whereby the judgment dated 6.10.2008 passed by II Civil Judge, Class II, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 124-A/07, whereby suit filed by respondents was decreed under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, was maintained, present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the deceased Nijamuddin whose legal representatives are respondents filed a suit on 28.9.2005 for eviction against Gulam Hussain predecessor in title of appellants alleging that respondent is owner of a house situated at Charnarwada, Redas Road, Dhar bearing Municipal House No. 7. It was alleged that the suit house was being owned by one Kaluram from whom it was purchased by the respondent vide registered sale-deed 18.6.1986 for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/-. It was alleged that after purchasing property name of respondent has been recorded in the Municipality as owner and also respondent is paying the house-tax. It was alleged that respondent is driver by profession and was in employment of private bus, which is being operated between Alirajpur to Jhabua. It was alleged that due to job respondent started to live at Alirajpur. It was alleged that the suit house is two story building. It was alleged that respondent inducted the appellant in the first floor of the suit house as tenant @ Rs. 100/- per month, while the ground floor of the house remained in occupation of the respondent. It was alleged that appellant paid the rent to the respondent from 1995 to 1998, but thereafter no rent was paid by the appellant to the respondent. It was alleged that in the year 2000 taking advantage of absence of respondent appellant took the possession of the ground floor of the suit house by breaking the locks, of which complaint was made by the respondent. It was alleged that notice was issued by the respondent on 11.7.2005, of which false reply was given by the appellant on 15.7.2005 wherein it was alleged that the appellant is tenant of Kaluram @ Rs. 10/- per month, therefore, appellant is not liable to vacate the suit accommodation. In the suit it was alleged that the respondent requires the suit accommodation for his own need of residence for which respondent is having no other suitable accommodation of his own. 10/- per month, therefore, appellant is not liable to vacate the suit accommodation. In the suit it was alleged that the respondent requires the suit accommodation for his own need of residence for which respondent is having no other suitable accommodation of his own. It was also alleged that appellant is in arrears of rent which has not been paid in spite of notice of demand. It was also alleged that appellant has encroached over the property, which was not letted out to the respondent. It was prayed that the suit filed by respondents be allowed and decree of eviction be passed against the appellants. 3. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statements wherein all the plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that the suit property has been purchased by the respondent. It was alleged that appellant has purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/- from Kaluram and also paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards sale consideration, but because of death of Kaluram sale-deed could not have been executed. It was alleged that appellant is tenant in the suit accommodation since last 40 years @ Rs. 10/- per month. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence suit filed by the respondent was decreed by the learned trial Court, against which an appeal was filed which was also dismissed, hence this appeal. 4. Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for appellants argued at length and submit that impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that burden to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant was on the respondents. Since the respondents failed to establish the relationship, therefore, learned Courts below committed error in holding the appellants tenant of the respondents and decreed the suit. Learned counsel further submits that since there is no attornment of tenancy, therefore, no decree could have been passed under section 12(1)(f) of the Act. Since the respondents failed to establish the relationship, therefore, learned Courts below committed error in holding the appellants tenant of the respondents and decreed the suit. Learned counsel further submits that since there is no attornment of tenancy, therefore, no decree could have been passed under section 12(1)(f) of the Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Uppalapati Veera Venkata Satyanarayanaraju v. Josyula Hanumayamma, reported in AIR 1967 SC 174 , wherein the Hon'ble apex Court had an occasion to deal with the word attornment and observed that attornment in its strict sense, is an agreement of the tenant to a grant of the reversion made by the landlord to another, or, as it has been defined, the act of the tenants putting one person in the place of another. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Kandhi Lal v. Abhilash Kumar, reported in 2007 (111) MPWN 118 : 2007 (11) MPACJ 377, wherein this Court while dealing with the word "derivative title" where the vendor did not issue notice to the defendant informing him about the sale of suit premises to the plaintiff, held that defendant was under no obligation to acknowledge the plaintiff as his landlord and to pay the rent to the latter; it does not amount to denial of title. Further reliance is placed on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Madanlal v. Manakchand, reported in AIR 1971 Raj. 55 , wherein Rajasthan High Court has held that the word "attornment" has not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act or any other law. It has been borrowed from English Law. It simply means an agreement or acknowledgment by a tenant that he holds the tenament of a new person as landlord. Such an agreement or attornment acts as an estoppel to prevent the tenant attorning from denying title of the one to whom the he has attorned. It has been borrowed from English Law. It simply means an agreement or acknowledgment by a tenant that he holds the tenament of a new person as landlord. Such an agreement or attornment acts as an estoppel to prevent the tenant attorning from denying title of the one to whom the he has attorned. Lastly, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Smt. Shashi Jain v. Khanduja and Company, reported in 2005 (I) MPACJ 199, wherein this Court held that for the purpose of determination of relationship of landlord and tenant payment of rent and receipt thereof has not been proved; no relationship of landlord and tenant established to invoke the provision of the Act regarding protection of tenant against eviction, as such provision of Act is not applicable. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel submits that appeal be allowed and impugned judgment be set aside. 5. Shri A. Siddiquee, learned counsel for respondents, submit that after due appreciation of evidence on record both the Courts below found that the appellants are the tenants of respondents in the suit accommodation. It is submitted that findings recorded by learned Courts below are the findings of fact, which requires no interference. It is submitted that since no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, therefore, the same be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that to prove the case respondents have filed documents Ex.P-1 to P-14. Ex.P-1 is the sale-deed executed by Kaluram in favour of Nizamuddin, predecessor-in-title of appellant dated 18.6.1986. Ex.P-2 is the mutation receipt of Municipal Council, Dhar dated 10.2.1987. Ex.P-3 is the document, which goes to show that on the basis of sale-deed, which was executed in favour of Nizamuddin, Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, Dhar allowed the application filed by Nizamuddin for mutation of his name as owner of the suit property. Ex.P-4 to P-10 are the receipts of payment of house-tax. Ex.P-11 is the notice dated 11.7.2005 of which the reply is Ex.P-14. Apart from this respondents have examined Kaushal Parveen as PW1, Ibrahim Khan as PW2, Juber Mohd. as PW3, while the appellants have examined Noorjahan as DW1, Ahsan as DW2, Hyder as DW3 and Mohanlal as DW4. Ex.P-4 to P-10 are the receipts of payment of house-tax. Ex.P-11 is the notice dated 11.7.2005 of which the reply is Ex.P-14. Apart from this respondents have examined Kaushal Parveen as PW1, Ibrahim Khan as PW2, Juber Mohd. as PW3, while the appellants have examined Noorjahan as DW1, Ahsan as DW2, Hyder as DW3 and Mohanlal as DW4. Noorjahan DW1, who is the widow of Gulam Hussain has admitted in para 6 of her cross-examination that she was the tenant of Kaluram in the suit accommodation @ Rs. 10/- per month. This was the stand taken by the appellants right from beginning. Even in reply notice Ex.P-14, which was issued by Nizamuddin in his lifetime stated that he was tenant in the suit accommodation of Kaluram. Noorjahan has further stated on oath that rent was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month, which was being paid to Jagdish s/o Kaluram. She has also admitted that Jagdish is alive. She has also stated that she has never purchased the suit house and she is occupying the house as tenant. In view of the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that appellants are the tenant. It is true that the vendor Kaluram has not issued any notice to Nizamuddin but after issuance of notice by the respondents there was no justification on the part of the appellants to pay rent to Kaluram or his son Jagdish. To prove the fact that rent was being paid by the appellants to Jagdish, appellants could have examined Jagdish but he was not examined for the best reasons known to them. It is true that after purchasing the suit accommodation there was no attornment in favour of respondents but at the same time it is amply proved that the tenancy was between Nizamuddin and Kaluram and after purchase of the suit accommodation and also after intimation there was no justification on the part of the appellants in not paying the rent and in not attorning the tenancy. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that learned Courts below committed no error in granting decree against the appellants under section 12(1) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that learned Courts below committed no error in granting decree against the appellants under section 12(1) of the Act. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that since no notice was given by Kaluram, therefore, appellants were within their right to challenge the title of the respondents, then too it will not improve the position of appellants as the decree is also on the ground of genuine requirement. In view of this appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.