Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment of affirmance passed by the learned court of appeal below. 3. The plaintiff-appellant had filed two suits, namely, Eviction Suits No. 8 of 1985 and 9 of 1985 for eviction against the same defendant with respect to different properties, which were heard and tried analogous and were dismissed by a common judgment and decree dated 21.8.1990 passed by the learned Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda. Against the said judgment and decree, Title Appeal No. 81 of 1990 (1 of 1992) was filed by the plaintiff-appellant, which was dismissed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Nalanda, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.5.1995. 4. Both the said suits were filed by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground of their personal necessity and default in payment of rent by the defendant, but even the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was challenged by the defendant, who claimed title and possession over the suit premises in his own right including adverse possession. 5. The first issue considered by both the courts below was with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. From the judgments of both the courts below, it appears that they have considered the pleadings and the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties in support of the said issue in detail and have found that the plaintiff, her husband and her son deposed as P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 respectively and only they tried to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 6. So far other witnesses on the same point, namely, P.W. 2, P.W. 8 and P.W.10 are concerned, it has been specifically found by the learned court below that as per their depositions neither the tenancy was created in their presence nor they had seen any document with regard to tenancy nor even the rents were ever paid in their presence. So far other witnesses on the same point, namely, P.W. 2, P.W. 8 and P.W.10 are concerned, it has been specifically found by the learned court below that as per their depositions neither the tenancy was created in their presence nor they had seen any document with regard to tenancy nor even the rents were ever paid in their presence. In the said circumstances, learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the said witnesses were not competent witnesses to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, whereas, the plaintiff, her husband and her son were interested witnesses and in absence of any other evidence, oral or documentary, in that regard, their evidence could not validly prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It has also been held by the learned courts below that burden is squarely upon the shoulder of the plaintiffappellant to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but she completely failed to discharge the said onus specially in view of the fact that the defendant-respondent completely denied the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between them in his pleading. 7. In the said circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the judgments and decree of the learned courts below for the reason that if the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is found to be non-existent, the suit for eviction has to be dismissed. 8. In the said circumstances, I do not find any question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in the instant Second Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. However, it may be noted that in a suit for eviction, question of title has to be gone into only incidentally and not in a full-fledged manner. Hence any finding with regard to title, even if given in the impugned judgments of the learned courts below, will not create a bar upon the parties to the instant suit to file a title suit with respect to the title over the suit premises, which has to be considered on its own merit in accordance with law.