JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of the Civil Judge, Ballia reversing that of the trial court, Ballia, and decreeing plaintiffs suit for recovery of arrears of rent from him. The plaintiff-respondent Haji Allauddin alleged that the appellant Mangoolal was his tenant in occupation of a portion of a house belonging to him, but had not paid any rent after the first January 1953; that he served a notice of demand on the appellant but without success. Hence the suit. It may be noted that the plaintiff did not ask for the ejectment of the appellant. 2. The defendant resisted the suit and denied that the plaintiff was owner of the accommodation or that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He alleged that the house belonged to one Mst. Somaria, who is admittedly the mother-in-law of the plaintiff. He further alleged that the accommodation had been let out to him by Somaria some 14 or 15 years before the suit. The trial court framed a number of issues of which only two are important in this appeal - namely, (1) whether the plaintiff is owner of the house in suit (2) whether any relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. It decided both of them against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal learned Civil Judge observed that the issue with regard to the plaintiffs ownership of the house was unnecessary and the only vital issue was whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. After reviewing the entire evidence he held, disagreeing with the trial court, that the plaintiff had established an agreement of tenancy. Accordingly it allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant who had come up to this court in second appeal. 3. Mr. K. C. Saxena argued that the view of the lower appellate court that the issue of ownership was unnecessary issue is erroneous. I cannot agree. As held by me in a case decided two days ago, Allahtala Malik Khadima Waqf v. Anand Swarup, S.A. No. 3251 of 1962. A person may not be the owner of the land and yet be competent to let it out on rent to another person. I cannot agree. As held by me in a case decided two days ago, Allahtala Malik Khadima Waqf v. Anand Swarup, S.A. No. 3251 of 1962. A person may not be the owner of the land and yet be competent to let it out on rent to another person. He may be the licensee of the owner, or a tenant, or even a trespasser. But it is not open to the person who takes the accommodation from him under an agreement of tenancy to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant, save in exceptional cases as for example, where fraud is alleged." The position is different where the landlord sues for the ejectment of the tenant and the latter denied his title, for a person cannot dispossess another in possession of any property without establishing a superior title. In the present case the plaintiff did not ask for the ejectment of the defendant but for recovery of rent under an agreement of tenancy. The appellate Judge was right in his view that the issue of ownership was unnecessarily framed. 4. Mr. Saxena argued vehemently that the issue of ownership having been framed on the instance of both the parties it could not be ignored by the appellate court as unnecessary. I am not impressed with this argument. An unnecessary or irrelevant issue does not become necessary or relevant merely because the parties are desirous of having it decided. The responsibility of framing the issues which are relevant is on the court. Or. 14, Rule 1, C.P.C., provides:- "At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statement it any and after such examination of the parties as may appear necessary, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend." Thus, it is for the court to ascertain the material questions of fact or of law which the parties are disputing. In practice it derives considerable assistance from the counsel for the parties in framing the issues, but it cannot surrender or repudiate its responsibility that the issues framed are material and not irrelevant. 5. Mr. Saxena then contended that the appellate Judge, while deciding the question of tenancy, had considered documentary evidence which was inadmissible. In practice it derives considerable assistance from the counsel for the parties in framing the issues, but it cannot surrender or repudiate its responsibility that the issues framed are material and not irrelevant. 5. Mr. Saxena then contended that the appellate Judge, while deciding the question of tenancy, had considered documentary evidence which was inadmissible. He pointed out that the plaintiff had filed certified copy of a written reply filed by the defendant in certain proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. I do not agree that this document was inadmissible. The proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were between the same parties and the plaintiff was entitled to rely on any statement made by the defendant in earlier proceedings. 6. Mr. Saxena then contended that a certified copy of the defendants written reply was inadmissible and that the original should have been produced, particularly when the defendant had denied that he had ever filed it. I do not agree. No objection appears to have been taken against the admissibility of the documents and the ground of appeal in this court also contain no such objection. I cannot permit Mr. Saxena to argue a new point at this stage. 7. Lastly, Mr. Saxena contended that the court below should have allowed the application for submitting the original certified copy Ex. 5 to a handwriting expert for a report whether the defendants signature had been forged. The flaw in this argument is that the appellant imposed the condition that the costs of examination by the expert should be borne by the plaintiff. I think no party is entitled to demand that a document should be examined by an expert and the costs realised from the other party. 8. No other point was urged. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.