JUDGMENT 1. THIS is am appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri K. K. Sarkar, Additional District Judge, 11th court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 744 of 1967 dated August 5, 1967 affirming those of Shri D. Guha, Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 141 of 1966 dated March 29, 1967. 2. THE plaintiff is the appellant in this Court. The plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment on the ground of default. The defendant by an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act raised a dispute that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The learned Munsif disposed of the said issue by order No. 57 dated 29.3.67 and found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in that view of his finding the learned Munsif dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. The appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge who affirmed the findings of the learned Munsif. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has come to this Court. Mr. Manindra Nath Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that both the courts below were wrong to hold that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and also wrong to hold that the plaintiff could not prove title in respect of the suit property. Mr. Ghosh submits that there is enough material to show that the plaintiff could prove his title. As regards the relationship of landlord and tenant, Mr. Ghosh contends that both the courts below were wrong to find that the decree in S. C. C. Suit obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant for arrears of rent, did not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The courts below wrongly found that the decision in the S. C. C. Court is not resjudicata in the present suit. 3. MR. Rabindra Nath Mitter, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, contends that there is no material to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. He, however, concedes that it is not very much necessary to prove whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property. For the present purpose, the most relevant consideration is whether the plaintiff is the landlord of the defendant. He, however, concedes that it is not very much necessary to prove whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property. For the present purpose, the most relevant consideration is whether the plaintiff is the landlord of the defendant. With regard to this question Mr. Mitter submits that both the courts below were right to think that the judgment in the S. C. C. decree in favour of the plaintiff for realisation of rent for a particular period does not and cannot establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. When such an objection has been taken by the defendant the competent Civil Court is well within its rights to go into the said question. The decree in a S. C. C. Suit cannot prevent a Civil Court from deciding the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. In support of his contention Mr. Mitter first refers to a decision reported in XII Indian Appeals 23 (Rajah. Run bahadoor Singh-v-Mussumut Lachoo koer ). It was held in this case "that the grant of a certificate to the widow under act XXVII of 1860, after a determination of the same issue as to the separate and joint ownership the said decision did not constitute res judicate in a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge to recover the estate of the deceased in her possession as earlier decision was only a proceeding of representation, not otherwise of title". Mr. Mitter next cites a decision of the Full Bench reported in A. I. R. 1954 Madras 788 (Pollapalli venkaiarama Rao-v-Musunuru Venkayya ). In this case, it has been held that "it is only in respect of disputes or matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of a revenue court that its decision would be binding on the parties in a subsequent civil proceeding and not its decision on incidental disputes or matters which arise in the course of adjudicating on the disputes and matters falling exclusively within its jurisdiction". This Full Bench decision was approved by the Supreme Court in a case reported in A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 287 (Bhagwn Dayal-vs. Mst. Reoti Devi ). In this case, a question of title was decided by revenue court by referring issue to Civil Court under section 271 of the Agra Tenancy act. This Full Bench decision was approved by the Supreme Court in a case reported in A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 287 (Bhagwn Dayal-vs. Mst. Reoti Devi ). In this case, a question of title was decided by revenue court by referring issue to Civil Court under section 271 of the Agra Tenancy act. A subsequent suit between the parties was filed in Civil Court for declaration of title and for injunction restraining the defendant from executing the revenue Court decree. It was found that the subsequent suit was not triable by the Revenue Court and as such the decision of the revenue Court did not operate as res judicata. Mr. Mitter also refers to a decision of this Court reported in 41 C. W. N. 1019 (Lachmirdm Kanu-v-Baladeb Prasad Bhakat ). In this case, it has been laid down "a decision of a small Cause Court in a rent suit that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the basis of an alleged settlement is not res judicata in a subsequent Title Suit between the same parties for declaration of title and for recovery of possession". The present case seems to be a stronger one. In the present case, nothing was declared about the relationship of landlord and tenant. Only an exparte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for arrears of rent for a certain period. That decision cannot be res judicata in deciding the questing of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties when such a dispute very much arises in the present suit. Mr. Ghosh contends that it is in evidence that on behalf of the defendant, the decretal clues were paid. That being so, the defendant cannot now say that there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. Mr. Ghosh refers to a decision reported in XVIII C. W. N. 33 (Mahammad Gauhar ali-v-Samiruddin Sheikh). In this case, it has been held "that an exparte decree for rent obtained by the plaintiff against the defendants in a previous suit is res judicata in a subsequent rent suit, unless the defendants can establish that the relationship of landlord and tenant established by the decree ceased since the passing of the decree". The facts of this case are different. The facts of this case are different. In this case, it was held that the decision in a rent suit was res judicate in a subsequent rent suit. The question before us is whether the decree in an S. C. C. suit for arrears of rent is res judicate in a subsequent title Suit where the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed. Relying on the decision referred to above I have no hesitation to say that a decree in a rent suit cannot determine the question of title and that being so, even assuming that the decretal dues were paid up by the defendant, it cannot be said that the decision in the S. C. C. decree prevents the learned Munsif from deciding the question of relationship between the parties. 4. MR. Ghosh next submits that the defendant is stopped from raising a dispute that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant as, admittedly, the defendant paid rent, namely, satisfied the decretal dues of the S. C. C. Court. In my opinion, there is no question of estoppel in this case. The principle of estoppel is that a tenant during the continuance of tenancy cannot challenge the title of his landlord. Here, the very relationship of landlord and tenant is challenged and as such, it cannot be said that simply because decretal dues under the S. C. C. decree were paid up by the defendant, the relationship of landlord and tenant is continuing. This contention of Mr. Ghosh is, therefore, negatived. This being the position, I agree with the courts below that the decision in the exparte S. C. C. Suit is not res judicata in the present suit to decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, I am of opinion that the learned courts below have rightly found that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. I therefore find nothing to interfere. In the result, the appeal is dismissed on contest. There will, however, be no order for costs in this appeal.