JUDGMENT : 1. - This is a defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1991 passed by Civil judge, Bhilwara in civil appeal No. 24/71, affirming the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif, Magistrate, Bhilwara dated 12.4.1971. 2. Brief facts of this case are that Bashiruddin father of respondent No. 2 Abdul Salim and Abdul Rahim, plaintiffs filed a suit against Kedar Bux defendant father or appellants No. 1 to 4 for eviction and arrears of rent from the disputed property in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Bhilwara. The plaintiffs case was that they had given one room in their property on rent to defendant on 19.8.1964 for Rs. 3/- per month. It was alleged that the defendant who was brother in law (gainer) executed a rent note but thereafter he never paid rent and become a defaulter. The tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 18.8.1968. Hence a suit was filed. The defendant in his written statement admitted the execution of the rent note and further that it bears his thumb impression but it was alleged that rent note was executed to enable the plaintiff to tide over his difficulties regarding payment of taxes and the same was fictitious. The defendant also denied the relationship of land-lord and tenant between them. It was alleged by the defendant that Smt. Khatoon who is wife of Kadar Bux and sister of Abdul Rahim s/o Kamaluddin was living in disputed house during the life time of Kamaluddin. Kamaluddin died in 1962. Smt. Khatoon filed a suit for partition against Abdul Rahim and L.Rs of Kamaluddin in 1965, pending decision. Hence this suit was not maintainable. The trial court on the basis of pleading of the parties framed only one issue which reads as under : 1. Is the defendant not a tenant of the plaintiff with respect to the premises in question and whether the rent note was got executed by him in favour of the plaintiff Abdul Rahim on the representation that the same would not be used against the defendant ? 3. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on 12.4.1971. The defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara which was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara. 3. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on 12.4.1971. The defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara which was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara. The appellate court accepted the appeal on 4.9.1971 and remanded the case back to the trial court by framing following two issues : 1. Did the defendant take on rent the premises in question from the plaintiff on 19.8.1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/- and execute the rent note in question in his favour ? 2. Have Smt. Halfia and Smt. Khatoon filed a suit for partition in the court of District Judge, Bhilwara in respect of the property left by Kamaluddin to the effect that they are owners of that property along with the plaintiff Abdul Rahim and if so, what is the effect of that suit in the present suit ? 4. A civil second appeal No. 687/71 was filed by the plaintiff before this Court. This Court on 5.3.74 accepted the Judge dated 4.9.1971 and remanded the case back with a direction to decide it on merits in accordance with law. On remand the appeal was dismissed on 19.8.1991. Hence this second appeal. 5. Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the courts below have wrongly held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further argued that no eviction decree can be ordered without any ground taken under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and amendment is necessary and has relied upon a decision of this Court in Bhinwa Ram v. Satyanarain. 6. Mr. K.C. Samdariya, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted regarding the argument that no eviction suit can be decreed without any ground under section 13 of the Act, that it is a finding of fact. Mr. Samdariya, has also submitted that nothing has been argued before the learned.courts below and thus it cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. He has replied upon Raja Durga Singh of Solon v. Tholu and others, AIR 1963 SC 361 , Shri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others, AIR 1976 SC 2335 , Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. Gopal Lal Rawat AIR 1986 Raj. 187 and Gitarani Paul v. Dibyendra Kandu Dibyendra Kumar Bundu, (1991) 1 SCC 1 . 7. He has replied upon Raja Durga Singh of Solon v. Tholu and others, AIR 1963 SC 361 , Shri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others, AIR 1976 SC 2335 , Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. Gopal Lal Rawat AIR 1986 Raj. 187 and Gitarani Paul v. Dibyendra Kandu Dibyendra Kumar Bundu, (1991) 1 SCC 1 . 7. In the earlier second appeal filed by the respondents in this Court, Hon'ble G.M. Lodha, J. (as he then was) while deciding issue No. 1 observed that "in my opinion issue No. 1 as framed by the learned Civil Judge was wholly uncalled for." Regarding issue No. 2 it has been observed that it also does not call for any remand nor does it require any recording of evidence. In this view of the matter it the learned Judge though that the point incorporated in issue No. 2 had any material bearing on the decision of the case and went to the root of the case he could have dealt with it as a pure question of law." On remand, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the Court had refused to stay the proceedings under section 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. as a partition suit was pending between the parties. The learned Judge has not accepted the argument observing that the present suit is based on the rent note while the other suit is based on the ground of partition and both cases are different and parties are also different. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant by his counsel that after the death of the plaintiff all the legal representatives have not been brought on record and hence the appeal was not maintainable. The Court has repelled the contention on the ground that the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff are already on record. Therefore, the learned Judge decided the appeal. It is pertinent to note that no other point was argued before the appellate court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the cases cited above. 9. In Bhinwa Ram v. Satyanarain and Anr., DBCWP No. 3116 of 87, D/d. 21.12.1988 (Raj.) it has been observed that suit for ejectment of tenant on ground of bona fide personal requirement of landlord. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the cases cited above. 9. In Bhinwa Ram v. Satyanarain and Anr., DBCWP No. 3116 of 87, D/d. 21.12.1988 (Raj.) it has been observed that suit for ejectment of tenant on ground of bona fide personal requirement of landlord. Tenant denying title of landlord in written statement, landlord cannot eject tenant on ground of denial of title in written statement and landlord should amend the plaint and take additional ground of ejectment. 10. In Raja Durga Singh of Solon v. Tholu and others, AIR 1963 SC 361 it has been observed that in a ejectment suit status of a defendant as tenant denied by the plaintiff, finding as to the status of defendant is a finding of fact and cannot be set aside in second appeal. 11. In Shri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and ors., AIR 1976 SC 2335 it has been observed that in a suit for evection, tenant is estopped from questioning the title of landlord. 12. In Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. Gopal Lal Rawat, AIR 1986 Raj. 187 (F.5.) it has been observed that when any issue is framed on the basis of allegation of title of the plaintiff and the defendant asserts his own title and only the plaintiff's title and both the parties lead evidence without raising any objection, question of prejudice caused to the may be seen, if decree for possession is to be granted on the proof of the title of plaintiff. 13. In the present case, the plaintiff did not raise the ground covered by Section 13 of the Act i.e. default in payment of rent, but the defendants themselves have denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant and denial of title is a ground for eviction under section 13(1) (f) of the Act. The finding of the First Appellate Court is correct that there is no need to frame other issues on the points. This view of the trial court was maintained by the High Court in the previous second appeal filed by the plaintiff against the remand order passed by the first Appellate Court, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no ground for eviction as mentioned under section 13 of the Act. This view of the trial court was maintained by the High Court in the previous second appeal filed by the plaintiff against the remand order passed by the first Appellate Court, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no ground for eviction as mentioned under section 13 of the Act. This point was not argued before the first Appellate Court, therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gitarani Paul v. D. Khandu (supra) the High Court in second appeal is not justified in ignoring the concurrent finding of fact of trial court and first appellate court, and accepting the appeal on an issue which was neither raised nor argued before the courts below. Yet it can be met by another decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Majati Subbraro v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2187 wherein it has been held that "plea of denial of landlord's title taken by the tenant in the proceedings for eviction itself, denial is not bona fide. The tenant can be evicted on that ground and separate proceedings are not necessary without amending the plaint." In the instant case as already discussed the parties before the trial court had full knowledge of the grounds which were raised and it was open to them to raise an objection before the appellate court or at least after remand by this Court in the earlier second appeal but no objection to this effect was ever raised in the courts below nor it was argued by the appellant and Bhinwaram's case (supra) will not help the appellants in view of the decision of Supreme Court in M. Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao (supra). Therefore, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court and under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as no substance. In my opinion, the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the learned courts below is correct and not perverse. Thus, I do not find any error to interfere with the finding so arrived at. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. 14. In the result, this second appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed. Thus, I do not find any error to interfere with the finding so arrived at. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. 14. In the result, this second appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara affirmed by the Civil Judge, Bhilwara in civil appeal No. 24/71 'is maintained. Parties shall bear their own costs of this Court. However, in view of the fact that the plaintiff and defendants are in relation, and the defendant is still in possession of the suit premises since 1964, I consider it proper to grant some more time i.e. up to 20th August, 1992 to the appellant to vacate the premises and deliver its actual and physical possession. to the respondents, on the condition that if he furnishes an undertaking before the executive court that during this period the possession of the suit premises will not be parted with and its actual and physical possession would be given to the respondent by 20th August, 1992. This undertaking shall be furnished before executing court within one month from today.Appeal dismissed. *******