JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer dated February 1, 1989 by which he allowed the appeal of the defendant-respondent, set aside the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Jaisalmer, decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment and has remanded the suit for re-trial. By this order the learned Additional District Judge has framed two additional issues regarding comparative hardship and partial eviction and has amended issue No. 1 by adding words "as the owner". The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed suit No. 43 of 1982 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaisalmer for the arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-respondent with the allegations, in short, as follows. On October 1, 1964, he let out the disputed premises to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 4/-. He executed a rent note in his favour. He paid rent for about three years. Thereafter, he did not pay the rent telling that he would soon vacate the demised premises. He has committed defaults in payment of rent. The demised premises is bonafide and reasonably required by him. The defendant admits in his written-statement that he is in occupation and possession of the disputed premises. All other allegations of the plaint were denied. He set up his own title in the suit premises. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the suit premises was let out on October 1, 1961 by the plaintiff to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 4/-, rent note Ex. 1 was executed by him in his favour, he has committed defaults in payment of rent and the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff. The defendant filed appeal No. 7/87 before the learned Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer. After hearing the parties, he passed the order as said above. 3. Before commencement of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant stated that the plaintiff confines his suit for ejectment on the ground of denial of title only and the remaining grounds for ejectment i.e. default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide necessity are not pressed and are withdrawn vide order sheet dated January 3, 1991. 3. Before commencement of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant stated that the plaintiff confines his suit for ejectment on the ground of denial of title only and the remaining grounds for ejectment i.e. default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide necessity are not pressed and are withdrawn vide order sheet dated January 3, 1991. Accordingly, arguments on the remaining points involved in the appeal were heard. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the learned Additional District Judge seriously erred in amending the issue No. 1 by adding the words "as the owner" as in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment the plaintiff is not required to prove his title in respect of the demised premises. He further contended that it is well proved from the evidence on record that the plaintiff let out the demised premises to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 4/- in the year 1964, rent note Ex. 1 was executed by him in plaintiff's favour and the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties is well proved and the learned appellate Court has concurred with these findings of the trial Court. He lastly contended that the issue No. 3 was specifically on the denial of title, the defendnat admittedly denied the plaintiff's title by setting up his own title in respect of the demised premises in his written- statement and on this ground alone the learned appellate Court should have affirmed the decree of ejectment and should not have remanded the case. He relied upon Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. Gopal Lal Rawat, 1986 RLW 618 (FB). 5. In reply it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent that the tenant is not estopped from denying the title of the landlord. He relied upon State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Narain Mariya, 1973 RLW 56. He further contended that the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 1 (whether the plaintiff let out the demised premises to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 4/- and the defendant executed rent note in favour of the plaintiff) are perverse. He also contended that the plaintiff did not file any rejoinder to the written-statement in which plaintiff's title was denied and his own title was set up. 4/- and the defendant executed rent note in favour of the plaintiff) are perverse. He also contended that the plaintiff did not file any rejoinder to the written-statement in which plaintiff's title was denied and his own title was set up. He further contended that the trial Court did not take into consideration that the rent was not paid by the plaintiff for more than 10 years. He lastly contended that the appellate Court rightly remanded the suit. He relied upon Duryodhan Mohapatra v. Bharat Mohapatra and others, AIR 1989 Ori. 142 and M/s. Sohan Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1979 All. 93 . 6. The first question for consideration in this appeal is whether the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 1 are perverse. The plaintiff Luna Khan PW 1 has deposed that he let out the demised premises to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 4/- and he executed rent note Ex. 1 in his favour. The scribe Murarilal PW 2 has deposed that the rent note Ex. 1 was scribed by him at the instance of the defendant and he put his thumb impression in his presence after understanding its contents. The attesting witness Radha Kishan PW 3 has deposed that the rent note Ex. 1 was executed by the defendant in his presence and he put his signatures as an attesting witness. The defendant admitted in his cross-examination that he had no enmity with Radha Kishan. His case was that he did not execute the rent note Ex. 1. But suggestion was put in the cross-examination of the plaintiff that the defendant put his thumb impression on the rent note Ex. 1 while he was under intoxication. The defendant Lal Mohd. DW 1 and his witnesses DW 2 and Niaz Mohd, DW 3 have deposed that the plaintiff and defendant used to drink wine together. This plea of execution of the rent note under the influence of wine was not put forward in the written-statement. On the contrary, it corroborates the plaintiff's evidence that the defendant Lal Mohd. put his thumb impression on the rent note Ex. 1. The learned trial Court has rightly held that plaintiff let out the demised premises to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 4/- and the rent note Ex. 1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. put his thumb impression on the rent note Ex. 1. The learned trial Court has rightly held that plaintiff let out the demised premises to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 4/- and the rent note Ex. 1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge has observed in its order under appeal that after thorough discussion of the evidence on record the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the tenancy and has accordingly decided the issue No. 1 in his favour. Despite this observation, the learned Additional District Judge amended the issue No. 1 by adding "as the owner" without assigning reason for the same. It has been observed in Shri Ram Parecha v. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335 at page 2337 para 15, as follows:- "Under the general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant." As such there was no justification for the learned Additional District Judge to amend the issue No. 1 and to remand the case for re-trial. 7. In the plaint, the ejectment of the defendant has also been sought on the ground of denial of title. In his written-statement, the defendant-respondent clearly denied the plaintiff's title and set up his own title. Issue No. 3 was framed on the denial of title. The learned Additional District Judge has remanded the case on the ground that the evidence led by the parties on this issue was not properly discussed by the trial Court. While deciding issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff, the trial Court has clearly observed that the defendant has denied the plaintiff's title in his written-statement. In view of this averment in the written-statement, no further discussion of the evidence on the issue was required. Denial of title in the written-statement was sufficient for the decision of this issue. It has been observed in Majoti Subbarao v. P.B.K. Krishnarao, Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 1980 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on September 19, 1989 as follows:- "In view of this, the entire basis for the argument that the denial of title must be anterior to the proceedings for eviction under the A.P. Rent Act is knocked out in our operation, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant must, therefore be rejected. We find, on the other hand, that a number of High Courts have taken the view that even a denial of the landlords titled by a tenant in a written-statement in an eviction petition under the Rent Act concerned furnishes a ground for eviction and can be relied upon in the very proceedings in which a written-statement containing the denial has been filed (See Sada Ram and others v. Gajjan Shaiama; Shiv Prashad v. Smt. Shila Rani and Machavaram Venkata Narayana Rao v. Sarvepalli Narayana Rao Sarada and another). As observed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to insist that a denial of title in the written-statement cannot be taken advantage of in that suit but can be taken advantage of only in a subsequent suit filed by the landlord would only lead to unnecessary multiplicity of legal proceedings as the landlord would be obliged to file a second suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of forfeiture entailed by the tenant's denial of his character as a tenant in the written-statement." 8. The facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent are quite different and distinguishable. They do not go to help him. As such the appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with costs. The order of the learned Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer dated February 1, 1989 is set aside. The judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Jaisalmer dated August 12, 1987 are restored. The defendant-respondent is given time upto July 31, 1991 to deliver the actual and physical possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff provided within two months from today he remits by money order the entire amount of arrears of rent and mesne profits upto July 31, 1991 and costs to the plaintiff and gives an undertaking in writing before the trial Court to the effect that he will not part with the possession of the suit premises during this period and will deliver its actual and physical possession to the plaintiff by or before July 31, 1991.Appeal allowed with costs.