J. M. MALIK, J. ( 1 ) THE only question which falls for consideration is whether the relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the appellants and the respondents. Both the Courts below have returned the finding in favour of landlord/respondents. Case of the respondents/plaintiffs is this. Property no. 46/2-C/1 East Azad Nagar, near Krishna Nagar, Delhi was owned by their late father Chiranji Lal and his brother Subhash Sharma. After the demise/death of chiranji Lal all other legal representatives had relinquished their rights, title or interest in favour of respondents. In June 1986 the appellants were inducted as tenants. The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from carrying out additions and alterations in the suit property. ( 2 ) THE appellants in their written statement alleged that the respondents had no locus standi to file the present suit. Relationship of landlords and tenants between the parties was called into question. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the respondents do not become the landlords/owners of the case property by virtue of relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/4. He explained that the case of the respondents is this that their predecessor in interest had become the owner of the property by virtue of a sale deed. It was submitted that the sale deed which is the best evidence was withheld for the reasons best known to the respondents. He pointed out that position does not begin to jell in the absence of sale deed. He explained that the courts below have wrongly placed reliance on the MCD record and inspection form Ex. PW2/1. ( 4 ) I am unable to locate substance in these arguments. Inspection form is a document of utmost importance. The name of the assessee is mentioned as Chiranji Lal Sharma. The names of the tenants are mentioned as Shanti Devi and Sarju Prasad, her husband. In the last column no. 7, it is mentioned that smt. Shanti Devi and Sh. Sarju Prasad are the old tenants. The same is thumb marked by none else than Shanti Devi herself as well as it bears the signature of Nanda Kumari d/o Sarju Prasad. This document pertains to the year 24. 10. 1983. This document contains the admission made by the original appellant herself as well as Nanda Kumar. Shanti Devi and Sh. Sarju Prasad are the old tenants. The same is thumb marked by none else than Shanti Devi herself as well as it bears the signature of Nanda Kumari d/o Sarju Prasad. This document pertains to the year 24. 10. 1983. This document contains the admission made by the original appellant herself as well as Nanda Kumar. The appellants are tinkering with useless defences. This is well known that a tenant cannot deny the title of his landlord as per Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act. Again suit was filed before the date of this inspection on 23. 10. 1989. It was also admitted that Nanda kumari is still alive. She was not produced in the witness box to explain the present position. The best evidence was withheld for the reasons best known to the appellants. ( 5 ) VINOD Kumar (legal representative of Smt. Shanti Devi) in his cross-examination admitted that in the year 1983 his sister Nanda Kumari and mother Shanti Devi were living in the property. ( 6 ) IN view of this documentary evidence the defence set up by the appellants that they had become owners of the premises in dispute by adverse possession falls flat. Appeal has no merits. No substantial question of law arises. Both the courts have already decided that relationship of landlord and tenant exists. This is a question which pertains to the facts and not to the law. Appeal is without merit and the same is therefore dismissed in limine. CM no. 5769/2006 also stands dismissed.