JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-6-2002 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Katni in Civil Suit No. 8-A/1994 decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent for eviction, this first appeal u/s 96 of the CPC has been filed by the defendant. In brief the case of plaintiff/respondent is that the appellant/defendant is a tenant @ ` 1250/- of a shop (non-residential accommodation) the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint and which is the subject-matter of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the defendant/appellant is denying his ownership although he is his tenant and hence, it made a cause for him to file the suit for eviction on the ground of disclaimer of title u/s 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act"). 2. The defendant/appellant filed written-statement and denied the plaint averments. According to the defendant, a notice u/s 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short "the Code") has been received by him from Tehsildar that he is an encroacher upon the suit land and therefore, according to him it is a matter of inquiry to whom the rent is to be paid. 3. The learned trial Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and denial in written statement, framed the necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 4. In this manner, this first appeal has been filed by the defendant. During the pendency of this first appeal, defendant Bhagwan died and his L.Rs have been brought on record. 5. The contention of Shri Jain, learned counsel for the appellants is that because the tenant/appellant received a notice u/s 248 of the Code from the Tehsildar mentioning therein that he is a trespasser upon the government land, therefore, he was in dilemma and in these facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the denial of title of the plaintiff is not bona fide. Learned counsel submits that defendant never set up the title of the disputed property in him or in any third person and if that would be the position, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheela and Others Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, which has been relied by a single Bench of this Court in Dayal Das (dead) through L.Rs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, which has been relied by a single Bench of this Court in Dayal Das (dead) through L.Rs. Smt. Kamla Chenani and others vs. Rajendra Prasad Gautam, 2012 (2) MPLJ 460 the eviction suit cannot be decreed. 6. On the other hand, Shri Zargar, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that not only at several places in the written statement but in the oral evidence as well as in several documents, the defendant/appellant has not only denied the title of the plaintiff but set up the title of the State Government and has prayed to allot the disputed premises to him and thus, the defendant is denying his title and is setting up the title of the suit property in the State Government. Learned counsel further submits that a suit for declaration of ownership right was submitted by the plaintiff against the State Government in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Mudwara which was registered as Civil Suit No. 21-A/1993 and it was decreed on 9-8-1997 in which it has been categorically held that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The judgment passed by learned trial Court was affirmed by this Court in F.A. No. 577/1997 decided on 28-6-2012. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. It has been stated at the Bar by Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and which has rightly not been disputed by Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment and decree dated 9-8-1997 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Mudwara in Civil Suit No. 21-A/1993 has been affirmed by this Court in F.A. No. 577/1997 dated 28-6-2012 holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the disputed premises is not owned by the State Government. 9. The factum of obtaining the disputed premises on tenancy basis @ ` 1250/- has not been denied by the defendant in the written-statement and this has also been found to be proved by the trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. I have gone through those reasonings as well as the evidence and I find that no illegality or any perversity is there in holding so. I have gone through those reasonings as well as the evidence and I find that no illegality or any perversity is there in holding so. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the appellants is also not very much serious in challenging those findings and his contention is that the decree on the ground of disclaimer of title as envisaged u/s 12(1)(c) of the Act can be passed against the tenant only when he has set up a title in his own or in third person or if he is mala fidely denying the title of the landlord. Heavy reliance has been placed on this point upon the decision of Supreme Court in Sheela (supra) which has been relied by this Court in Dayal Das (supra). Thus, the only pivotal question which is to be decided is whether the defendant set up title in State Government or in himself or he is denying the title of the plaintiff mala fidely. 10. On bare perusal of the plaint averments it is gathered that the plaintiff has categorically pleaded that the defendant/appellant obtained the disputed premises on the monthly rent @ ` 1250/-. The rent receipts are also proved in evidence and they are exhibited and thus, it is proved that defendant/appellant took the disputed premises on tenancy basis from the plaintiff. 11. So far as setting up title in third person or in himself by the tenant and further whether he has mala fidely denied the title of landlord is concerned, in this regard paras 2, 4, 5 and 6 of written-statement may be considered. On bare perusal of these paras it is gathered that defendant is setting up the title not only in the Government but has also submitted an application to allot the disputed premises to him. Categorically it has been pleaded in para-2 of the written-statement that the defendant has encroached upon the disputed premises and the State is claiming its ownership on it. In para-4 of the written-statement it has been pleaded that because the disputed premises is of the Government, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive any rent. In para-5 it has been pleaded that by playing fraud upon him the plaintiff is realising the rent although the land is of the State Government. In para-4 of the written-statement it has been pleaded that because the disputed premises is of the Government, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive any rent. In para-5 it has been pleaded that by playing fraud upon him the plaintiff is realising the rent although the land is of the State Government. In para-6, the defendant has pleaded that plaintiff himself submitted an application before the Nazul Officer for renewal of the lease which was determined, therefore, plaintiff is not the owner of the land in question. Taking the cumulative effect of these averments in the written statement it is gathered that the defendant has set up title in third person i.e. the State Government. Not only this, he also applied for obtaining the suit premises from the State Government and is mala fidely denying the title of the plaintiff. 12. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, in this regard, if Ex. P-6 is seen it is gathered that plaintiff submitted objection in regard to the application filed by the defendant for the grant of Patta in his favour. In this document (para-2), the plaintiff has stated that he is the owner of the property in question on the basis of registered sale deed etc. The defendant opposed this objection by filing reply (Ex. P-7) and by denying the averments made in para-2 of the application of plaintiff (Ex. P-6) he has stated that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. Hence, I am of the view that the defendant has set up the title in third person, although he is the tenant of the plaintiff. Since he submitted certain objections and has also filed reply of plaintiff's application in Tehsil Court that he is not the owner of the suit property and the property may be allotted to him, according to me, the denial is also mala fide. Hence, the decision of Supreme Court in Sheela (supra) is not applicable in the present case and similarly the single Bench decision of this Court in Dayal Das (supra) is also not applicable on the same ground. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee of ` 5,000/-, if pre-certified. 14. Hence, the decision of Supreme Court in Sheela (supra) is not applicable in the present case and similarly the single Bench decision of this Court in Dayal Das (supra) is also not applicable on the same ground. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee of ` 5,000/-, if pre-certified. 14. At this juncture, Shri Jain, learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to vacate the suit premises since is in occupation of the same for more than 20 years. 15. This prayer has been vigorously opposed by Shri Zargar, learned counsel for the plaintiff. However, time to vacate the suit premises is granted to the appellants on the following conditions: (i) The appellants/tenants/defendants shall vacate the suit premises on or before 31-12-2013; (ii) they shall not create any third party interest in the suit premises; (iii) the cost of the suit as well as of this appeal shall be deposited by the appellants before learned trial Court/Executing Court on or before 31-1-2013; (iv) the amount of rent, if any due, be also deposited on or before 31-1-2013 and the appellants shall continue to deposit the monthly rent in terms of section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961; (v) the plaintiff/respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the cost as well as the rent which shall be deposited by the appellants; and (vi) a usual undertaking mentioning the aforesaid conditions be submitted by the appellants in the trial Court on or before 31-1-2013. It is, however, made clear that in case appellants fail to comply any of the conditions laid down hereinabove, the respondent/plaintiff shall be free to get the decree of eviction executed prior to 31-12-2013. With the aforesaid observations and time allowed to the appellants to vacate the suit premises, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed