Short Note : 1. The question arose whether in a suit based on relationship of landlord and tenant, the pleas raised in defence relating to title of the landlord could be gone into. The trial Court initially framed issues on those pleas but later deleted them, being of the view that the principal question in such a suit was whether or not a lease was created. If it was to be answered in the affirmative, the tenant was estopped from disputing the landlord's title. Held : The grievance of the applicants before me is that the evidence on the pleas they raised may not be shut out because the issues arising out of those pleas had been struck out. The principal question they said was no doubt the creation of tenancy but once they succeeded in proving that the sale-deed executed in favour of the non-applicant was bogus, the existence of the lease would be rendered doubtful. Section 116 of the Evidence Act, they submitted, only estopped a tenant from disputing his landlord's title on the date of the lease but that pre-supposes that the person effected by estoppel is a tenant. When the tenancy itself was denied on the ground that no title was transferred to the landlord under a particular sale-deed or that no tenancy was created under a lease-deed which itself was bogus, all this evidence would be relevant on the question of existence or non-existence of tenancy Reliance was placed on Sk. Rashid v. Hussain Bakash, AIR 1943 Nagpur 265. 2. I am in respectful agreement with the law propounded in AIR 1943 Nagpur 265. The main question in the suit is no doubt one relating to creation of tenancy but the evidence on the pleas raised for disproving tenancy cannot be shut out. The applicants can lead evidence to show that the sale-deed was bogus and so was the lease deed. As observed at page 266 in the authority cited, the existence of a genuine sale-deed in favour of the non-applicant would make the lease more probable hut if it is proved to be bogus, the lease-deed may equally be found to be bogus. 3. In the result, though the issues nave struck out, the trial Court may well bear in mind the observations made in AIR 1943 Nagpur 265 and decide upon relevancy of the evidence which the applicants want to give. 3. In the result, though the issues nave struck out, the trial Court may well bear in mind the observations made in AIR 1943 Nagpur 265 and decide upon relevancy of the evidence which the applicants want to give. A.I.R. 1943 Nag. 265, relied on.