JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. The judgment dated 6-1-1998 passed by the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura in T. A. No. 16 of 96 has been impugned in the present second appeal. In that judgment after recording the reverse finding, the judgment dated 4-1-1996 passed by the Addl. Munsiff, Sadar in T. S. No. 154 of 1979 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff respondents herein was set aside and the suit was decreed. 2. The factual matrix in a short compass may be noticed thus. The plaintiff respondents are two brothers. The first plaintiff respondent Nil Mohan Das by virtue of a lease deed executed by the appellant herein (Ext. A) on 16-1-1975 inducted into lands and building mentioned therein and thus became the lessee under the appellant. The claim of the plaintiff respondent is that adjacent to the said leased property measuring 22 ft. x 12 ft. there was another plot of vacant land of Agartala Municipality. He applied for and was allotted the said plot of lands on which he constructed a building measuring 22 ft. x 16 ft. after obtaining approval from the said Municipality. It was contended by the respondent that though the lease deed executed by the appellant herein was intended to be only for building measuring 22 ft. x 12 ft., the schedule of the deed covered the suit land also which was a fraudulent act on the part of the appellant. Taking advantage of the manipulation or wrong description of the leased property the defendant appellant made attempt to dispossess the plaintiff respondent from the suit land. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff respondent instituted the title suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and injunction in respect of the suit land. 3. The suit was contested by the appellant herein contending, inter alia, that the entire land including the suit land measuring 25 ft. x 30 ft. was leased out by him in favour of the plaintiff respondents and thus they became the tenant of the entire premises. The evidentiary value of the lease deed cannot be diminished by any oral evidence and, therefore, the plaintiff respondents were prevented from taking the plea that the suit property was not a part of the leased property. was leased out by him in favour of the plaintiff respondents and thus they became the tenant of the entire premises. The evidentiary value of the lease deed cannot be diminished by any oral evidence and, therefore, the plaintiff respondents were prevented from taking the plea that the suit property was not a part of the leased property. In Clause 10 of the lease deed it was specifically provided that the plaintiff respondent would maintain status quo of the lands adjacent to the building and in that view of the matter, it was not open to the plaintiff respondent being a tenant to claim hostile title over the suit land. 4. The learned trial Court after taking into evidence, the depositions of the witnesses and several documents produced by the contending parties came to hold that the tenancy created by the lease deed (Ext. A) was in respect of the entire lands including the suit land measuring 25 ft. x 30 ft. Referring to the provision of Section 92 of the Evidence Act regarding evidentiary value of the lease deed, it was held that the plaintiff respondents were precluded from disputing the tenancy over the entire land after he himself acknowledged the same. As no particulars of fraud and misrepresentation could be brought on record, the provisions of Order VI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code were pressed into service for rejecting the contention that the description of the leased property in the schedule of the lease deed including the suit land was the outcome of fraud or misrepresentation as advanced by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff respondent produced documents in respect of the claim that Agartala Municipality had accorded approval for use of the suit land and a separate Touzi No. 49/86 was posted in their favour, learned trial Court observed that no evidence could be put on record by the plaintiff to show that any application for posting of Touzi in their names was filed prior to application of the defendant in respect of the suit land. As the Touzi was not posted before creation of the tenancy, the same could not confer any right title or interest over the suit land. As the Touzi was not posted before creation of the tenancy, the same could not confer any right title or interest over the suit land. On the other hand, the learned trial Court after examining the documents relied on by the defendant-appellant came to hold that challan No. 2202 dated 6-10-1964 showed posting of Touzi in the name of the defendant appellant. As the entire land and building described in the lease deed was held by the plaintiff-respondent as tenant under the defendant appellant herein, the suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs was found to have no merit and accordingly, the same was dismissed. 5. In the appeal instituted by the plaintiff respondents, the learned appellate Court held that though the tenancy was originally for the entire premises including the suit land admittedly the defendant appellant was not the owner of the same and Agartala Municipality continued to be the owner thereof. When the plaintiff respondents obtained permission from the Agartala Municipality to use the lands and separate Touzi was established after the suit land was allotted in their favour, it was to be held that the tenancy in respect of the suit land ceased with effect from February, 1977 when the Municipality conferred title upon the plaintiff respondent. After taking the view that the tenancy in respect of the suit land had no effect after February, 1977, the description of the property in the lease deed notwithstanding, learned appellate Court recorded a reverse finding that as the Agartala Municipality being the undisputed owner of the suit land allotted the same in favour of the plaintiff respondents they were entitled to the decree as prayed for. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned trial Court came to be set aside and a decree declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff respondents in the suit land confirming their possession and restraining the defendant appellant perpetually from disturbing their peaceful possession was recorded. 6. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik. learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Dhar and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. The admitted fact as surfaced from the above pleadings is that the appellant is the lessor and the respondents are the lessee in respect of the leased property mentioned in Ext. 6. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik. learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Dhar and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. The admitted fact as surfaced from the above pleadings is that the appellant is the lessor and the respondents are the lessee in respect of the leased property mentioned in Ext. A. The dispute is that a plot of lands forming the suit land had been wrongly included in the description in the leased property which was intended to be a building measuring 22 a. x 12 ft. only. While the plaintiff respondents contended that the vacant lands adjacent to the leased building were never owned and possessed by the defendant appellant and the Agartala Municipality being the owner of the same allotted and posted Touzi in their favour, the defendant appellant contended that the lease deed covered the entire lands measuring 25 ft. X 30 ft. which included the suit land and, therefore, being a tenant. it is not open to the plaintiff respondents to question the title of the defendant appellant over the same. I have carefully gone through the lease deed from which the controversy had arisen. The leased property has been described thus: within district West Tripura, Sub-Division - Sadar. Agartala Municipality sheet No. 3. holding No. 576/820 and Touzi No. 19/1974 within lands measuring 25" x 30, one house measuring 25' x 15' is the leased property. Within the boundaries, namely, road on the north. Khas land on the south, land of Binoy Banik on the east and lands of Prufulla Ghosh on the west. one pucca plinth tin shade measuring 25' x 12' is the leased property. Thus, description shows that only the tin shade measuring 25' x 12' is the leased property which stood within the lands measuring 25' x 30'. Thus, in my view, the remaining part of the lands was not the subject matter of the leased deed and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff respondent was a tenant under the defendant appellant in respect of any land other than the tin shade. 8. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff respondents have been in possession as tenant in respect of the leased tin shade. That the adjoining plot being the suit land allotted by establishing separate Touzi by Agartala Municipality in their names is also not in dispute. 8. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff respondents have been in possession as tenant in respect of the leased tin shade. That the adjoining plot being the suit land allotted by establishing separate Touzi by Agartala Municipality in their names is also not in dispute. In the suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondents, Agartala Municipality was not made a party and, therefore, any question with regard to the title between the plaintiff respondents and the said Municipality could not be decided in the proceedings between them. However, a careful reading and closer scrutiny of the lease deed would make It clear that the suit land was not part of the leased premises. The findings of the Courts below or admission of the parties to the contrary are thus unsustainable in law. The District Court being the final Court of facts, it is not permissible in the second appeal to enter into the factual controversy, particularly when the leased deed has made It clear that the suit land is not the part of the leased property and consequently, the landlord tenancy relationship between the parties in respect of the suit land did never exist. That being the position, the plaintiff respondents have undoubtedly a better title than the appellant herein and, therefore, the Judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court calls for no interference. 9. For the discussions and reasons aforementioned, this second appeal has no merit which is consequently dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed