JUDGMENT : M. Y. Eqbal, J. Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandrajeet Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is defendant, has challenged the order dated 19.5.2008 passed by Munsif, Chaibasa in Eviction Suit No.14 of 2005 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the written statement. 3. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforementioned eviction suit for a decree of eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises. The defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement denying the grounds for eviction set forth in the plaint. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed application on 17.3.2008 seeking amendment of the written statement. The proposed amendment sought for by the petitioner is quoted herein below: - “After para 17 of the written statement the following be added serially as part of the written statement: -“17(a). That parties are also contesting B.B.R.C. Case no.4/2000 which is pending before the learned Controller under the B.B.R.C. Act, Chaibasa. 17(g). That the learned controller was pleased to pass an order in that case on 1.2.2008 whereby he was pleased to direct plaintiff to disclose as to whether he had obtained permission of the learned Deputy Commissioner to let out the suit house, by the next date fixed in that case. 17(c). That on the next date in that case, which was 7.3.08 plaintiff through their lawyer informed the learned controller to the effect that they had or have nor obtained any permission whatsoever. That case has not been fixed on 11.4.08 with a direction to the Kashmahal officer to appear on that date in that case and to state his opinion in the matter. This development shows with any ambiguity that the state agency has been made a party in that proceeding, and hence how this case cannot proceed further without the state as a party and this matter has arisen afresh by virtue of the orders referred to above. Besides the above, even if there was any privity of contract between the parties concerning tenancy, the same having been admitted by plaintiff themselves to be illegal, such agreement cannot be enforced in a court of law.” 4. Besides the above, even if there was any privity of contract between the parties concerning tenancy, the same having been admitted by plaintiff themselves to be illegal, such agreement cannot be enforced in a court of law.” 4. The Court below noticed that the suit for eviction was filed in 2005 whereas B.B.R.C. Case was filed by the petitioner in the year 2000. The case made out in the aforementioned B.B.R.C. Case was not pleaded in the written statement. The Court further found that it was only after the defendant-petitioner examined five witnesses, the proposed amendment was sought for disputing the title of the plaintiff. I fully agree with the view taken by the Munsif holding that in a suit for eviction, the only issue that is to be decided is the relationship of the landlord and tenant and the Court shall not go into the question of title over the property in question. The order, therefore, needs no interference by this Court. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is dismissed.