JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure has been preferred by the defendant-applicant against the order of Second Civil Judge Class II, Shivpuri, passed in Civil Suit No. 17-A of 1984, dated 19-4-1984. ( 2. ) THE plaintiff-non-applicant filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-applicant with the averment that the suit premises were owned by his adoptive mother Mst. Mishri Bai and after her death he has become the owner. The defendant-applicant denied the ownerships of the plaintiff-non-applicant over the premises and pleaded that he is the tenant of one radhakrishna. During the pendency of the suit, defendant-applicant filed an application on 21-12-1983 under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter called the Code for short) and sought the amendment in the written statement because subsequently he obtained a copy of the judgment of Civil Suit No. 21-A of 1977. According to the applicant, the amendment application was filed because of the subsequent event. ( 3. ) THE trial Court by a short order rejected the prayer of amendment and held that in a suit for eviction title to the property is not to be decided and as such the proposed amendment was unnecessary. Aggrieved by this, the defendant-applicant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ( 4. ) IN para 4 of the plaint the plaintiff non-applicant has pleaded that he is the owner and landlord of the suit premises, as he is the adoptive son of the deceased landlord Smt. Mishribai. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the defendant-applicant has been paying rent to him and he has issued duly signed receipts of rent to him. In reply to this averment in the plaint, the defendant-applicant accepted the fact that he has paid the rent to the plaintiff-non-applicant. A person receiving rent is to be regarded as a landlord. When the defendant-applicant paid rent to the plaintiff-non-applicant, he accepted him as a landlord of the premises occupied by him. When a person by his declaration, act or omission intentionally causes or permits another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative can be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing. When a person by his declaration, act or omission intentionally causes or permits another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative can be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing. According to the provisions of section 116 of the evidence Act, no tenant of the immovable property shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given. Thus, the tenant defendant-applicant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. ( 5. ) NO doubt, the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure should be liberally construed, yet in an eviction suit, the question of title is not germane. Principal question centres round the relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendant-applicant by his application for amendment wants not only to deny the title of the landlord when he had paid the rent to him but also prays, inter alia, to decide the title. ( 6. ) IN my opinion, the proposed amendment is unnecessary and irrelevant. Averments which are irrelevant for the decision of real controversy cannot be allowed to be added by amendment. ( 7. ) THE trial Court has not erred in exercise of jurisdiction. In consequence, the civil revision is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Revision dismissed.