He claimed to be tenant of the earlier landlord Shri Khar.
At the time of purchase of the said building, the respondent tenant was occupying one room suit premises situated on the rear side of the said building as tenant.
756 of 2004 filed by the respondent.
He denied the genuineness of the registered sale deed dated 26/9/1991.
The respondent agreed to pay the rent but failed to pay it.
He companytended that he had never paid any rent to the appellant.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit under Section 12 1 c of the M.P. Act.
It was specifically averred in the plaint that the appellant had purchased the said building vide a registered document on 26/9/1991.
Failure of the respondent to pay the rent resulted in a numberice being sent by the appellant to him on 23/11/2002, but despite the numberice the respondent did number pay the rent.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
6, Parsi Mohallah, Indore the said building from M s. Pyare Mohan Khar, Hari Mohan Khar, Shayam Sunder Khar and Anil Khar predecessors in title of the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 26/9/1991 for a companysideration of Rs.
The respondent companytested the said suit and filed a written statement denying the title of the appellant as well as the grounds on which his eviction from the suit premises was sought.
Briefly put, the facts are that the appellant landlady purchased House No.
1/2, Street No.
On 06/1/2003, the appellant filed a suit for eviction of the respondent under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 the M.P. Act on grounds of number payment of rent, denial of the appellants title by the respondent, bona fide need for residential purpose and reconstruction of the said building as it had become unsafe for human habitation.
This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 03/08/2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore allowing Second Appeal No.
1,70,000/ .
The respondent was informed by the predecessors in title of the appellant that the appellant is the new landlady of the said building and he should pay the rent to her.
The respondent denied that there was any attornement between the parties and that there was a landlord tenant relationship between him and the appellant.
