JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. - I am afraid that the judgment and decree passed by the Court of appeal below hereinafter referred to as the Court of appeal cannot be sustained. It is evident that the Court of appeal has done many things which ought not to have been done and has omitted to do certain things which should have been done by it. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs appellants who shall be referred to in the judgement as the "plaintiff" against defendant respondents 1 and 2 for arrears of rent and ejectment. "The case of the plaintiff was that Smt. Kulsum Bibi and Amina Khatun were owners of the property in dispute which is the shape of an ahata. They let out the property to Smt. Kachura on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 6 and that the said property was sub-let by Smt. Kachura to Birbal Pandey defendant-respondent 2. Plaintiffs claimed themselves to be transferees of Smt. Kulsum Bibi and Smt. Amina Khatun. They have stated in their statement of claim that they served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring the defendants to vacate the property in dispute but they failed to do so. 3. Smt. Kachura remained absent inspite of sufficient service and did not contest the suit. On the other hand the suit was contested by defendant-respondent 2 Birbal Pandey. He denied of plaintiff's title to the property in dispute. He further stated that Smt. Kachura was not tenant of the property in dispute. He claimed that he was in possession over the property in dispute in his own right and he had acquired rights of sirdar after abolition of zamindari. Certain other pleas were also raised in the written statement of Birbal Pandey but they are not relevant for the disposal of this second appeal. 4. The trial Court went into the question of title of parties. It found that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove that the property in dispute belonged to them. On the other hand it came to the conclusion that Birbal Pandey has succeeded in establishing his title to the land in dispute. On these finding it was natural for the trial Court to negative the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the tenancy of Smt. Kachura. On the other hand it came to the conclusion that Birbal Pandey has succeeded in establishing his title to the land in dispute. On these finding it was natural for the trial Court to negative the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the tenancy of Smt. Kachura. It also decided the question of alleged sub-tenancy of Birbal Pandey against the plaintiffs. In consequence it recorded a decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. 5. The said decree has been affirmed by the Court of appeal. 6. The Court of appeal noticed the fact that the suit of the plaintiffs was on the basis of tenancy and it was wholly necessary to go into the question of title. It nevertheless examined the title of the plaintiffs and instead of coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their ownership it recorded a finding that the plaintiffs were not landlords of the property in dispute. It further held that it was not necessary to examine the title of the defendants because in its view that approach would raise the question of paramount title. Suffice it say that the Court of appeal came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that Smt. Kachura was a tenant and that Birbal Pandey was her sub-tenant. In the net result it dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. The findings of the Court of appeal have been challenged before me on behalf of the appellants. 7. As already pointed out the appellate Court was rightly of the view that the suit as framed was based on the relationship of landlord and tenant and the question of plaintiff's title was foreign to the enquiry. In these circumstances the Court of appeal should not have entered into the examination of the title deeds filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and should not have expressed any opinion on the merits of the plaintiffs title on the basis of the said document. The short and simple question on which attention of the Court of appeal should have been rivetted was whether Smt. Kachura was tenant of the plaintiffs qua the property in dispute ? True it is that the conclusion drawn by the Court of appeal on examination of the title deeds is that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were landlords of the property in dispute. True it is that the conclusion drawn by the Court of appeal on examination of the title deeds is that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were landlords of the property in dispute. In ordinary parlance as well as in its technical significance the term 'landlord' applies to a person to whom rent is payable by the tenant. The examination of the title deeds could not show whether any rent was payable to the plaintiffs by Smt. Kachura. The approach adopted by the Court of appeal has coloured its vision while dealing with the merits of the case as regards the alleged tenancy of Smt. Kachura. 8. On behalf of the plaintiff, Shaukatullah, P.W.1 was examined as a witness. He proved the rent note dated November 26, 1957 said to have been executed by Smt. Kachura. The trial Court has rejected his evidence on the ground that there were no reasons for him to be present at the time of the execution of the documents. However, it is established by the testimony of Shaukatullah that he is the son of Smt. Kulsum Bibi. He specifically stated that he was looking after the properties of his mother Smt. Kulsum Bibi. He further stated that two of the attesting witnesses viz. Abdul Samad and Hardeo Tewari had died. In spite of that, the Court of appeal has drawn an adverse inference against the plaintiffs on account of non-production of Abdul Samad and Hardeo Tiwari as witnesses in the case. The Court of appeal has itself observed that the plaintiffs took steps to summon Ahmad Ali scribe of the document twice but did not come in the witness box. The Court of appeal has observed that this fact alone would not absolve the plaintiffs from the responsibility of non-production of Ahmad Ali. This observation appears to be wholly unjustified. The Court of appeal has also opined that the deed of lease dated November 26, 1957 was an unregistered document and it may have been subsequently forged. This finding again is unsustainable. Abdul Samad one of the attesting witness had already died. Even otherwise suspicion cannot take the place of proof and unless there was some evidence to suggest that the document dated November 26, 1957 had been forged the conclusion arrived at by the Court of appeal is unsustainable. This finding again is unsustainable. Abdul Samad one of the attesting witness had already died. Even otherwise suspicion cannot take the place of proof and unless there was some evidence to suggest that the document dated November 26, 1957 had been forged the conclusion arrived at by the Court of appeal is unsustainable. The Court of appeal has also given an opinion that the document in question did not appear to be fourteen years old but does not given any basis for forming that opinion. It was not proper for the Court of appeal to have acted as an expert in the case. 9. Shaukatullah P.W.1 proved the entries from the rent register from the year 1957 to 1965. The Court of appeal has wrongly observed that no extracts of the register relating to the year 1961 to 1965 had been filed. This observation is also unjustified. The extracts of the register for the years 1961 to 1965 are on the record of the case. Shaukatullah P.W.1 in his statement has stated that the rent which was originally agreed with Smt. Kachura was Rs. 6 per mensem and it was subsequently increased to Rs. 7 per mensem. This part of the testimony of Shaukatullah has been disbelieved by the Court of appeal on the ground that it was not supported by any documentary evidence. This observation is again incorrect and against the material on record. It is to be remembered that Shaukatullah had stated that the entries in the register of realisation of rent were either in his handwriting or in the handwriting of Abdul Samad as Karpardaz. It is not in dispute that Abdul Samad had died before that suit. The entries in the Register could not be lightly brushed aside. The present suit was instituted in the year 1965. The observation of the Court of appeal that there was anytime lag in the entries in the rent register and the institution of the suit is erroneous and arises from a non-reading as material evidence on the record. 10. I have referred to the errors of law committed by the Court of appeal in assessment to evidence which are writ large on the face of its judgment. 10. I have referred to the errors of law committed by the Court of appeal in assessment to evidence which are writ large on the face of its judgment. Since I am remanding the case for a fresh decision to the Court of appeal it will be open to the said Court to make a fresh assessment of evidence keeping in view the observation made above. 11. The Court of appeal has held that the plaintiff have not been able to prove contract of sub-tenancy between Smt. Kachura and Birbal Pandey. It fact it was not possible for the plaintiff to lead any such evidence. The law on the subject is not in doubt. Subject to what is stated below the plaintiffs are entitled to claim a decree for ejectment against Birbal Pandey also even if they are not able to prove a contract of sub-tenancy subsisted between Smt. Kachura on the one hand and the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest on the other. May be that Birbal Pandey had been in occupation of the property in dispute without any payment of rent in any capacity whatsoever provided his possession is on behalf of Smt. Kachura. On the other hand if his possession is in his own right no decree can be passed against Birbal Pandey. The Court of appeal has wrongly assumed that an enquiry into title of Birbal would raise question of paramount title. In fact the evidence led by the parties on this aspect of the case is material to determine the question of alleged sub-tenancy of defendant-respondent 2 Birbal Pandey. This question has not been investigated on an erroneous assumption made by the Court of appeal. The suit, therefore, has to be remanded for determination of the question whether Birbal Pandey is in possession of the property in his own right. 12. The result is that this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree of the Court of appeal are set aside and the case is remended to the said Court for a fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the observations made above. The cost of this appeal shall abide the event.