JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC) arises out of judgment and decree dated 01/03/2002 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 45-A/2000 arising out of judgment and decree passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 8A/1999. 2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against the respondent/defendant on the ground of arrears of rent and for recovery of the rent under section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The plaintiff /appellant pleaded that she owns a Pator, which was purchased by her on 27/03/1985 by a registered sale deed and the same was rented to defendant @ Rs. 100/- per month by an oral tenancy. The respondent/defendant paid the rent for about one year, but from June, 1996 stopped payment of rent and also utilized the electricity and did not pay the electricity consumption charges, therefore, the electricity connection was disconnected. Thereafter, she used electricity by putting direct wire on the poles. In spite of demand, rent was not paid nor the possession of Pator was handed over and the notice was replied which was based on wrong facts. 3. The written statement was filed by the defendant by taking the plea that plaintiff's father was agreed to sell the Pator on 23/03/1985 and obtained Rs. 10,000/- under an oral agreement to sale and it was pleaded that it was agreed that no rent will be charged. The defendant also alleged that for execution of sale deed, the father of plaintiff /appellant was orally approached and on 09/10/1994, the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- was also taken and on an ordinary paper the agreement was written and the sale deed was to be executed up to 08/10/1999. The plaintiff wants to usurp Rs. 25,000/- paid by defendant. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. The shop was not taken on rent. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence of both the parties dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has not proved to be the owner and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. 5. The shop was not taken on rent. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence of both the parties dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has not proved to be the owner and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. 5. The appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal before the 1st appellate Court along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking on record the registered sale deed of disputed Pator executed by Babulal in her favour, the copy of the order of mutation in the Municipality and payment of house tax in respect to the said Pator. The 1st appellate Court dismissed the application and also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Hence, the appellant preferred this second appeal. 6. This Court vide order dated 25/10/2002 has admitted the appeal for final hearing and has framed the following substantial question of law :- 'Whether the findings of the 1st appellate court that the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the defendant is vitiated as the similar finding arising ignoring the material admission made by the defendant in her reply Ex. P/4.' 7. The appellant has taken the ground that the courts below have not accepted the settled principle of law that in a suit for eviction between the landlord and tenant, the title of the property has no relevance at all, as well as framing of the issue to this effect and finding was an unnecessary exercise by the Courts below. It is further submitted that in a suit between the landlord and tenant, the Courts were required only to see the nature of possession of defendant in the accommodation and if the defendant is not living as owner in the property nor she is claiming ownership rights, then the presumption is that she is living as a tenant. The courts below have perversely appreciated the evidence available on record. The learned 1st appellate court has wrongly dismissed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Shivdayal and Anr. The courts below have perversely appreciated the evidence available on record. The learned 1st appellate court has wrongly dismissed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Shivdayal and Anr. reported in 2019 (8) SCC 637 , in which, the Apex Court has held that it is not the principle of law that concurrent finding of fact is unassailable in second appeal. The above view was also relied upon in the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Yusuf Ali reported in (2010) 12 SCC 740 . 9. Heard. 10. The plaintiff /appellant has produced herself as witness No.1 and Babulal Agrawal as PW/2. The defendant examined herself as DW/1, Gurucharan Kaur as DW/2 and Maqbul Khan as DW/3. 11. The plaintiff in her court evidence, has stated that she is the owner of the disputed Pator. She purchased it from Babulal in the year of 1985 by a registered sale deed. The Pator was rented out to the defendant Gafooran Bai on a rent of Rs. 100/- per month in the year 1995. Gafooran Bai paid the rent regularly for around a year. However, she stopped paying the rent from 15/06/1996. The plaintiff has further stated that she sent a notice (Ex P/1) to the defendant. The defendant gave the reply to the said notice as per Exhibit-P/4. PW -2/Babulal Agrawal has corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff/appellant and stated that plaintiff Shanti Devi Garg is his daughter. He sold the disputed Pator to her daughter for a consideration of an amount of Rs. 5,000/-in the year 1985 by a registered sale deed. He has further stated that in 1994- 95 her daughter rented out the disputed Pator to defendant Gafooran Bai on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The defendant paid the rent for almost one year. Thereafter, she refused to pay the rent. 12. The defendant Gafooran Bai in her evidence refuted the allegation made by the plaintiff and stated that the Pator is owned by Babulal and Shanti Devi Garg had never rented her the disputed Pator and actually it was Babulal who rented her the Pator on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- at about 18 years back. 12. The defendant Gafooran Bai in her evidence refuted the allegation made by the plaintiff and stated that the Pator is owned by Babulal and Shanti Devi Garg had never rented her the disputed Pator and actually it was Babulal who rented her the Pator on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- at about 18 years back. She has further stated that after some times Babulal increased the rent from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 50/- per month. There is no written rent agreement. 13. The defendant Gafooran Bai in her statement further alleged that Babulal took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from her for his personal requirements and promised to sell the Pator to her. The agreement to sell the Pator was executed on a paper. However, Babulal refused to sell the disputed property to her and instead file this case through his daughter. The defendant witnesses Gurucharan Kaur and Maqbul Khan corroborated the statement of the defendant. 14. In the present case, appellant/plaintiff has claimed that she is the landlord as well as owner of the disputed Pator on the ground that she had purchased it from her father Babulal. It is not disputed between the parties that originally the property was owned by Babulal. PW/2 Babulal, who was examined as PW-2 by the plaintiff, has supported the case of the plaintiff and categorically stated that in the year of 1985, he sold the disputed property to plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi Garg by a registered sale deed. He has further corroborated the fact that the said property was rented out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The above statement of Babulal is not rebutted by any cogent evidence. The learned courts below hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship of land lord and tenant mainly on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced the said sale deed. However, when the plaintiff prayed to file it, the first appellate court has dismissed the application U/o 41(27) of CPC filed by the plaintiff to produce the sale deed as an additional evidence and held at para no. 12 of the judgement that there is no need to consider the evidence with regard to the fact that the plaintiff had purchased the Pator from Babulal or not. 12 of the judgement that there is no need to consider the evidence with regard to the fact that the plaintiff had purchased the Pator from Babulal or not. Consequently, the findings of the courts below are found to be perverse because on one hand they held that in the cases of landlord and tenant, the factum of ownership or title is not required to be proved as strictly as it is required in a title suit and on the other hand the suit was dismissed on the ground of failure to strictly prove the title of plaintiff over the property in dispute. 15. As per the case of the defendant the agreement to sell of the Pator was executed on a paper. However no documentary evidence was filed by the defendant to prove this fact. No counter claim was filed by the defendant either for specific performance of alleged agreement to sell. Therefore, it is not proved that the defendant was living in the disputed property as its owner. 16. The courts below have also failed to consider the facts mentioned in document Exhibit-P/4, the reply of defendant to the notice of plaintiff, in which, the defendant has categorically admitted that the property in dispute is owned by Babulal and she is living in the disputed property as the tenant of Babulal who himself stated that he had sold the above property to plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff is proved to have derived the title of landlord over the property in dispute in the light of principle laid down by the Apex Court in case of 1997(5) SCC,329 in which it is held that a tenant automatically become the tenant of Transferee. 17. The learned courts below have also failed to consider that DW-1 defendant Gafooran has also stated in her court evidence that Babulal had told her to pay the rent to his daughter (the plaintiff) as he had sold the property to her. The learned courts below have also ignored to consider the admissions made by the defendant as during the cross examination the defendant has suggested the plaintiff that the defendant had paid the entire amount of rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff has not given any receipt to the defendant. It was also suggested by the defendant in the cross examination of the plaintiff that the Pator belonged to Babulal before plaintiff purchased it. It was also suggested by the defendant in the cross examination of the plaintiff that the Pator belonged to Babulal before plaintiff purchased it. In the case of 2007(2) MPLJ,64 it is held that suggestions given by the counsel in cross examination is admission on behalf of party. Consequently, on the basis of admissions of defendant it is proved that the plaintiff is the landlord of defendant in respect to the disputed Pator. As a result of above discussion the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant is found to be proved. 18. Consequently, the finding of 1st appellate court as well as trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant is found to be vitiated ignoring the material admission made by the defendant in her reply Exhibit-P/4 as well as in oral evidence. 19. The defendant in her reply Exhibit- P/4 has mentioned that she had given some amount in cash to Babulal and, therefore, she is not paying the rent. On the basis of above admission it is also proved that the defendant failed to pay the rent as stated by the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to get the vacant possession of the disputed premises on account of non-payment of arrears of rent. 20. In the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Shiv Dayal & Anr. reported in 2019 Legal Eagle (SC) 872, the Apex Court has held that if the civil suit has not been tried properly without deciding the substantial question of law in view of the pleadings, evidence and applicable law, the second appeal should have been admitted. 21. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 01/03/2002 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 45-A/2000 is hereby set aside. The defendant/respondent is directed to pay the arrears of rent to the appellant/plaintiff w.e.f. 15/06/1996 to till date @ Rs. 100/- per month. The defendant/respondent is further directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the premises to the appellant-plaintiff without hindrance and undertaking to the aforesaid extent shall be submitted before the trial Court within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. 100/- per month. The defendant/respondent is further directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the premises to the appellant-plaintiff without hindrance and undertaking to the aforesaid extent shall be submitted before the trial Court within eight weeks from the date of passing of this judgment. Violation of the aforesaid conditions on the part of the defendant/tenant/respondent shall entitle the appellant-plaintiff to approach this Court for suitable measures including assistance of Police force for vacation of the suit premises under the orders of the Court. 22. Decree be drawn accordingly. The defendant shall bear the cost of the suit of the plaintiff.