Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This is an application by the defendants whose application for rejecting the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the Court. 3. Sri Ram Balak Mahto, Senior counsel appeared for the defendant-petitioners and supported the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by submitting that the defendant had appeared and filed documents in the Court to show that they had bona fidely purchased the property from the settlee of Darbhanga Raj. In that view of the matter it is submitted that they are not the tenants but the owners of the premises. It was therefore submitted that they not being the tenants rather owners the plaintiff had no cause to sue and accordingly the plaint should be rejected at the very threshold. 4. On the other hand, Sri Sukumar Sinha, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff Opposite Party has submitted that the Court rightly rejected the application of defendant as the relationship of landlord and tenant was a question of fact and had to be decided on evidence in course of trial. For the purpose of taking action under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) the Court had to see the plaint alone and the averment made therein. The defence of the defendant is a matter which is to be established in the trial and as such, in the present case it was open to the defendant to raise the question of possession including question of title and that would be decided by the Court in the proceedings. 5. Having heard both the learned Senior counsel I find that the trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the application. The trial Court rightly held that whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists or not was a question of fact which would be decided on the basis of evidence in course of trial. The plea of the defendant that he is a tenant cannot be looked into at this stage for the purpose of rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. I may, however, observe that this is an eviction suit of the year 1992 and we are in the 2006. 6. I may, however, observe that this is an eviction suit of the year 1992 and we are in the 2006. I hope and wish that fourteen years of Vanwas is over and the trial starts. In other words, the proceedings should be expedited forthwith.