This appeal is from the decree passed by the learned Subor­dinate Judge, U. A. D. at Jorhat reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff. 2. The plaintiff is the Sibsagar Municipal Board. Its case is that the suit land was rented temporarily to Jogendra Nath Barthakur, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants at an annual rent of Rs. 300/- for the year 1953-54. Jogen­dra possessed the suit land till his death by constructing a house thereon. On 1-5-55 the plaintiff issued an ejectment notice on Jogendra to give khas possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Though the notice was served on Jogendra, he did not comply with the requirements of the notice. On the other hand he stopped payment of rent to the plaintiff. Jogendra died in Febru­ary, 1959 leaving the defendants as his heirs and they are possessing the suit land by running a shop in the house standing thereon. Thereafter the plaintiff served another notice on the defendants requiring them to vacate the suit land and to pay rent within 30-4-61. Notwithstanding the notice the defendants neither vacated the land nor paid the arrear rent. Hence the plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment and arrear rent. 3. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. The defence case is that the defendants are not tenants in respect of the suit land under the plaintiff and that Jogendranath Borthakur was also never a tenant under the plaintiff. That the plaintiff has no title over the suit land and it had no legal right to let out the same. The Defendants contended the service as well as the legality of the ejectment notice. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? 2. Whether there is any cause of ac­tion for this suit? 3. Whether the defendants and late Jogendra Nath Borthakur were tenants of the plaintiff? 4. Whether legal notice has been serv­ed as alleged? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as claimed? 6. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? 5. On consideration of the evidence on record the learned Munsiff decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and recovery of Khas possession. The claim for arrear rent was however dismissed. An appeal was preferred from the decree of the learned Munsiff before the learned Subordinate Judge. 6. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? 5. On consideration of the evidence on record the learned Munsiff decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and recovery of Khas possession. The claim for arrear rent was however dismissed. An appeal was preferred from the decree of the learned Munsiff before the learned Subordinate Judge. A cross-objection was also filed by the plaintiff. On consideration of the evi­dence on record the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. He also dismissed the crossobjection of the plaintiff. Hence this ap­peal. 6. The learned Munsiff found that the defendants were tenants under the plaintiff and a valid notice of ejectment was served on the defendants and as such he decreed the suit. The learned Subor­dinate Judge, however, entered into the question of title of the plaintiff and found that the plaintiff had failed to prove their title to the land. There was no issue re­garding the title to the land. This is an ejectment suit simpliciter. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants were tenants and their tenancy was terminated by valid notice and therefore they were liable to ejectment. The defendants denied the ten­ancy. In an ejectment suit simpliciter the Court is to first ascertain whether the re­lationship of landlord and tenant exists as alleged by the plaintiff. If it is established that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff, then the Court has to examine the question of notice and other relevant ques­tions before passing a decree for ejectment. If it is found that the plaintiff has failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant as between himself and the defen­dant, the suit will fail even though he may succeed on some other points. In an eject­ment suit simpliciter the Court is not re­quired to enter into the question of title, except to the extent it may be necessary in connection with finding out the relationship of landlord and tenant, as for example, in a case where tenancy by operation of law is alleged; and in such a case also there should be a specific issue to that effect. In the instant case however the learned Subor­dinate Judge completely overlooked the issue No. 3, which is to the following effect: "Whether the defendants and late Jogendra Nath Borthakur were tenants of the plaintiff?' Instead of deciding this issue the learned Subordinate Judge entered into the question of title of the land for which no issue was framed in the suit. In the circumstances I hold that the learned Subordinate Judge has failed to dispose of the appeal in ac­cordance with law. Hence the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge including the finding regarding notice are set aside and the case is remanded to him (Assistant District Judge) for disposal in ac­cordance with law. 7. The learned Assistant District Judge should first decide issue No. 3 and come to his own finding whether the rela­tionship of landlord and tenant exists be­tween the plaintiff and the defendants and if he finds that the plaintiff has been able to establish it, he will then consider whe­ther valid ejectment notice had been serv­ed on the tenants and other relevant ques­tions. The cross-objection filed by the plaintiff before the learned Subordinate Judge also shall be disposed of in accord­ance with law. 8. The appeal is thus allowed and the case is remanded to the learned Assis­tant District Judge for disposal in accord­ance with law and in the light of the obser­vations made hereinbefore. There will however be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.