J.N. SARMA, J.— This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.93 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 39/92. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.6.1992 passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Guwahati dismissing the Title Suit No. 9 of 1986. Hence, this appeal. 2. The following are the substantial questions of law: i) Whether the findings of the appellate Court that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property was correct in law when the suit property had been mentioned in Ext. 1 which was a document executed in favour of the plaintiffs father. ii) Whether in view of the admission made in the written statement in paragraph 18 to the effect: "That formerly, both the brothers i.e. Jairam and Arun lived together in the suit house during the life time of their father and later on in the year 1980 the father of the plaintiff purchased a plot of land at Sualkuchi and constructed his RCC house and shifted to the said house giving the suit house solely to the father of the defendant." The suit could have been dismissed. 3. The brief facts are as follows:-The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 9/ 1986 against the defendant for ejectment and for arrear house rent. The defendant took the suit house on rent of Rs.75/- per month from November, 1982. The defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff called a village meeting in May, 1984 where in arrear rent was paid to May, 1984. The defendant again defaulted in making the payment. It is further stated that the plaintiff required the suit house for the accommodation of his children who were studying in Sualkuchi college. The plaintiff served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and notice was duly served. Thus the tenancy was duly terminated by the end of the month of tenancy. 4. The case of the defendant is that the suit land and house originally belonged to Muktaram Medhi, who was "the grandfather of both the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and notice was duly served. Thus the tenancy was duly terminated by the end of the month of tenancy. 4. The case of the defendant is that the suit land and house originally belonged to Muktaram Medhi, who was "the grandfather of both the plaintiff and defendant. In the year 1980, the plaintiff constructed a house at Sualkuchi and shifted there giving the house to the defendant and since then the suit land and house remained in possession of the defendant's father. Defendants and his brother are residing on the eastern portion of the house and their father residing on the western portion of the house. The defendant alleged that he was never a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the suit house and the land. 5. As many as 8 issues were framed in the suit. The learned Munsiff took up first the issue No. 7(a). It is an issue with regard to the question of tenancy of defendant. The learned Munsiff arrived at a curious finding with regard to this issue and his finding is as foliows:- "Accordingly it is found that plaintiff and - . defendant, are of same family and the suit house of their ancestral property and so it cannot be said that the occupation of the suit house by the defendant are ^s a tenant under the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove to be the absolute owner of the suit house. So, I am of the opinion to say that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant are not a tenant under the plaintiff. As such it is found that plaintiffs suit is not maintainable in the present form. Both these issues are thus answered in negative and against the plaintiff." In arriving at this finding the learned Munsiff did not consider the admission made by the defendant in the written statement quoted above. He also did not consider the oral evidence. Thereafter the learned Munsiff took up issue No. 2. Issue No. 2 is with regard to notice. He found that the notice was duly served and that notice was valid and proper. He also did not consider the oral evidence. Thereafter the learned Munsiff took up issue No. 2. Issue No. 2 is with regard to notice. He found that the notice was duly served and that notice was valid and proper. Regarding issue No. 3 the learned Munsiff came to a finding that the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff had to come for recovery of possession within 12 years from the date of occupation by the defendant. In the written statement itself the defendant took a stand that plaintiff lived in the house till 1980 then the plaintiff constructed a RCC house at a different place and shifted there and this suit was filed in the month of March, 1986. It is not understood how the suit is barred. Otherwise also if this suit is based on title it is Article 65 which will apply and not Article 64 of the Limitation Act. This is not a suit with regard to title. It is a suit based on tenancy, so the question of title is irrelevant. Regarding the question of bonafide requirement (issue Nos. 4 and 5) the learned Munsiff did not discuss the same as he found that the defendant was not a tenant in respect of the suit house. Regarding the issue Nos. 6 and 7 it was found that as defendant was not a tenant, so the question of giving relief does not arise. 6. There was an appeal being Title Appeal No. 39 of 1992 and the learned Asstt. District Judge No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati without discussing either the oral or documentary evidence came to a finding that the defendant was not a tenant under the plaintiff and plaintiff is not the owner of the house. Ifae lower appellate Court also did not consider the admission in paragraph 18 of the written statement. Both the trial Court as well as appellate Court did not consider the oral evidence at all save and except a document i.e. deed of partition (Ext. 1). Accordingly, the. appeal was dismissed. 7.1 have heard Mr C.C. Deka, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr A.K. Thakur, learned advocate for the respondent. Question No. 1: A bare perusal of Ext. 1). Accordingly, the. appeal was dismissed. 7.1 have heard Mr C.C. Deka, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr A.K. Thakur, learned advocate for the respondent. Question No. 1: A bare perusal of Ext. 1 will show that this land came to the share of the plaintiff (the father of present appellants-original plaintiff) and this document was introduced in evidence without objection and a perusal of the schedule of this exhibit will make it clear that the land on which the house stands belonged to the plaintiff, further both the Courts below did not consider the oral evidence. PW-1 specifically deposed that the house in question came to his possession and it was given on rent to the defendant as he constructed his own house and shifted there. There is also further oral evidence on this point. There is the evidence with regard to the village meeting wherein it is stated that the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1350/- as the arrear rent. That evidence was not considered by the Courts below. It was simply ignored. So, considering all these facts it is found that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the house at a rent of Rs.75/- p.m. Admittedly the defendant did not pay rent and became defaulter. Question No. 1 accordingly answered in favour of appellants. Question No. 2: An admission is the best piece of evidence. Paragraph 18 of the written statement as quoted above will show that it is the case of the defendant that the suit house was given to them when the plaintiff constructed RCC house, but with regard to that there is no evidence worth the name, this burden is squarely on them. That was not discharged. Further, immovable property can be transferred only by three modes as required under the Transfer of Property Act. A right to an immovable property cannot be acquired in the manner as pleaded by defendant. There is absolute necessity of deed of transfer. That is absent. So, it is established that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and as found earlier the defendant is a tenant and the defendant being a defaulter, proper notice being issued and served as found by the trial Court and appellate Court this suit is to be decreed which I hereby do. The appeal is allowed. That is absent. So, it is established that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and as found earlier the defendant is a tenant and the defendant being a defaulter, proper notice being issued and served as found by the trial Court and appellate Court this suit is to be decreed which I hereby do. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of both the Courts below shall stand quashed and the plaintiffs suit shall stand decreed with costs althroughout. The suit is not governed by the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, the suit house is not situated in urban area, it is situated in rural area.