JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants/plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of original plaintiff, Sh. Rawat Nath, have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, 1908, in this Court on 26.11.1996, being aggrieved by the concurrent rejection of his eviction suit by both the courts below filed under the provisions Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950'). 2. The appellants/plaintiffs have assailed the validity of judgment and decree dated 27.09.1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner dismissing appeal filed by the plaintiff being Civil Appeal No.25/1988- LR's of Rawatnath v. Motiram (Motilal), whereby the learned first appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1981 passed by learned Munsif, Bikaner, in Civil Original Suit No.539/1972- Rawatnath v. Motilal, whereby the suit filed by the original plaintiff, Sh. Rawat Nath, seeking eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide need was dismissed. 3. While admitting the present second appeal, a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 28.01.1998 framed the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court:- "Whether the finding on Issue No.1 given by the courts below is wholly perverse and in utter disregard of the documentary as well as oral evidence on the record, which conclusively prove that Rawat Nath got possession at the time of purchase of house and let it out to Motilal on 30.06.71?" 4. The learned trial court though deciding in favour of appellant/plaintiff that the suit property, a residential house, situated at Bidasar Bari, Bikaner, was purchased by the plaintiff, Sh. Rawat Nath by a registered sale-deed from the defendant, Motiram @ Motilal, himself in the year 1956, but since the plaintiff failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, though he claimed that the said residential house was given in tenancy to the defendant, Motiram @ Motilal on 30.06.1971, therefore, the eviction decree cannot be given to the landlord/plaintiff under the Act of 1950. 5. 5. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.09.1981 of the learned trial court is quoted herein below for ready reference:- fook|d la0&1 bl fook|d ds fy;s ih0MCY;w0&1 jkorukFk dk dFku gS fd mlus oknxzLr ifjlj 37@& :0 izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;s ij izfroknh dks fn;kA fdjk;k mldks nks&rhu o"kZ rd vnk fd;k x;kA edku dks fdjk;s ij nsus dh fdlh ckr dh fy[kk i<+h ugha gqbZ FkhA oknxzLr edku mlus izfroknh ls gh [kjhnk Fkk ftldk fodz; foys[k izn'kZ 2 gSA edku dk iV~Vk eksrhyky us mldks fn;k tks izn'kZ 3 gSA vCnqy jtkd bl fooknxzLr edku esa jgk FkkA o lk/kqjke tkV Hkh fooknxzLr edku esa cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj dh gSfl;r ls jgk FkkA ih0 MCY;w0&2 lk/kqjke dk c;ku gS fd mlus oknxzLr ifjlj jkorukFk ls 37@& :0 izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;s ij fy;k Fkk ftlesa og N%&lkr ekg rd jgkA blds ckn eksrhyky us ;g edku fdjk;s ij ys fy;k FkkA ih0MCY;w0&3 Qwlkjke ds vfHkdFku gS fd mlus jkorukFk ds dgus ls oknxzLr edku dh ejEer dh FkhA ih0MCY;w0&4 uch c['k dk dFku gS fd izn'kZ 2 mldks fy[kk gqvk gS o eksrhyky us bl ij , ls ch tks gLrk{kj mlds lkeus fd;s FksA blds fojks/k esa Mh0 MCY;w0&1 eksrhyky dk dFku gS fd mlus ;g edku jkorukFk dks ugha cspk o jkorukFk dHkh bl edku esa ugha jgkA izn'kZ&2 ij mlds gLrk{kj ugha gSA o u uch c['k us mldk cS;ukek fy[kkA mlus fn0 30-6-71 ;k fdlh vU; rkjh[k dks jkorukFk ls edku fdjk;s ij ugha fy;k o u gh dCtk fn;kA mlus dHkh Hkh jkorukFk dk dksbZ fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;k o vCnqy jtkd o lk/kqjke bl edku esa dHkh ugha jgsA tUe ls gh og bl edku esa jg jgk gSA Mh0MCY;w0&2 lq[knso dk c;ku gS fd 30&35 lky ls og bl edku esa eksrhyky dks ns[krk vk;k gS fdlh vU; dks jgrs ugha ns[kkA Mh0MCY;w0&3 f'kojru ds vuqlkj izn'kZ ,0&1 ls izn'kZ ,0&4 dks pquko lwph esa ,DlV~sDV gSA nksuksa i{kksa dh bl fook|d ds ckjs esa ;gh lk{; gSA tgka rd oknxzLr ifjlj oknh }kjk [kjhnus dk iz'u gS] og izn'kZ 2 o oknh o ih0 MCY;w0&4 uch c['k ds c;kuksa ls Li"V :i ls fl) gks tkrk gS] D;ksafd izn'kZ 2 iathd'r foys[k gS o bl ij izfroknh ds gLrk{kj fl) fd;s tk pqds gSaA dsoy izfroknh }kjk euk djus ij og fd oknxzLr ifjlj mlus ugha cspk dksbZ egRo ugha j[krk gS] D;ksafd vxj oknxzLr ifjlj oknh dks ugha cspk tkrk rks izFke rks mldh jftLVjh ugha gksrh o nwljk izn'kZ 3 iV~Vk tks izfroknh ds ikl gksuk pkfg;s Fkk o oknh ds ikl dSls gksrkA bldk Li"Vhdj.k Hkh izfroknh us fdlh izdkj ls ugha fn;k gSA vr% oknxzLr ifjlj izfroknh }kjk oknh dks lu~ 1956 esa cspk tkuk fu%lUnsg :i ls fl) gSA vc blesa ewy iz'u ;g gS fd D;k oknh o izfroknh ds chp esa edku ekfyd o vfHk/kkjh dk fj'rk dk;e gqvk o vxj gqvk rks fdl rkjh[k ls o fj'rk dk;e gksus ds i'pkr~ fdlh Hkh izdkj ls dksbZ fdjk;s dh vnk;xh dh xbZ ;k ugha\ oknh us vius okn i= esa ;g Li"V :i ls of.kZr fd;k gS fd oknxzLr ifjlj izfroknh dks fdjk;s ij nsus ds i'pkr~ vkt rd fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;k gSA vr% oknh dk ;g dFku fd mls nks&rhu o"kZ rd fdjk;k fn;k ;g vius vki esa xyr gks tkrk gS] D;ksafd oknh ds vfHkopu o vfHkdFku esa fojks/kkHkkl gSA vxj okLro esa izfroknh }kjk dHkh Hkh fdlh Hkh izdkj dk HkkVd dk lank; fd;k tkrk rks ;g vfHkdFku esa vo'; mYysf[kr gksrk fd brus ekg ;k brus lky dk izfroknh us fdjk;k fn;k tcfd mlds vfHkopu esa ,slk dgha ugha gS o c;kuksa esa og dgrk gS tks fd fo'oluh; ugha gks ldrkA vc iz'u gS fd D;k izfroknh us oknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk NksM+k o oknh dks csp fn;k o mlds i'pkr~ iqu% vfHk/kkjh dh gSfl;r ls mlus oknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk izkIr fd;kA oknh us le; & le; ij vius vfHkopuksa dks la'kksf/kr djok;k gS o igys vfHkopu esa mlus lh/kk gh ;g vfHkopu fd;k gS fd fnukad 30-6-71 ls izfroknh mldk 37@& :0 izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;snkj gSA nwljs esa mlus ;g crk;k gS fd ;g edku mlus izfroknh ls [kjhnk vkSj fQj dCtk izkIr fd;k o ckn esa vU; O;fDr;ksa dks fdjk;s ij j[kk fQj fnukad 30-6-71 dks izfroknh dks ;g fdjk;s ij fn;k x;kA vius vfHkdFkuksa esa oknh dk vfHkdFku gS fd bl oknxzLr ifjlj esa vCnqy jtkd o lk/kqjke tkV vfHk/kkjh dh gSfl;r ls mlds fdjk;snkj jgs FksA buesa ls vCnqy jtkd rks oknh }kjk izLrqr dh ugha fd;k tkrk gS o lk/kqjke dk c;ku gS fd og 37@& :0 izfrekg dh nj ls jkorukFk ls oknxzLr ifjlj fdjk;s ij fy;k FkkA og mlesa N%&lkr eghus dsoy jgkA mlds ckn eksrhyky blesa vk;kA viuh izfr ijh{kk esa lk/kqjke dk dFku gS fd tc og bl edku esa vkdj jgk rks jkorukFk gh bl edku esa jgrk Fkk tcfd jkorukFk dk ,slk dgha Hkh dFku ugha gS fd oknxzLr ifjlj esa og dHkh Lo;a jgk gksA lk/kqjke dks ;g Hkh Lohd'fr gS fd mls irk ugha fd fdl eghus o fefr ls ;g edku fdjk;s ij fy;kA o dsoy ;gh edku vkt rd fdjk;s ij fy;k o vU; dksbZ edku ugha fy;kA vkl ikl dkSu jgrs Fks ;g Hkh mls irk ughaA xkao esa ?kkl ugha feyrk Fkk bl dkj.k og blesa vkdj jgkA bldh fo'ks"k Lohd'fr ;g gS fd oknxzLr edku esa tc og jgrk Fkk rc izfroknh Hkh ogha ikl esa jgrk FkkA ysfdu fdlds edku esa jgrk Fkk ;g mls irk ughaA lk/kqjke dks dc fdjk;s ij fn;k blds ckjs esa fo'ks"k rkSj ls jkorukFk Hkh ugha dgrk gSA dsoy jkorukFk o lk/kqjke dks ekSf[kd lk{; gksus ds dkj.k rFkk bu nksuksa ds vfHkdFkuksa esa laiqf"V ugha ik;s tkus ds dkj.k o lk/kqjke dks ;g Hkh irk u gksus ds dkj.k fd mlus oknxzLr edku dc fdjk;s ij fy;k] ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd lk/kqjke dHkh Hkh bl oknxzLr edku esa fdjk;s ij jgk gksA oknxzLr edku esa lk/kqjke }kjk fdjk;s ij ysus dk vfHkdFku fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fo'oluh; ugha ik;k tkrkA bl izdkj ,d fdjk;snkj dks rks oknh }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k tkuk o nwljs dfFkr fdjk;snkj ds vfHkdFku esa fdlh izdkj dh laiqf"V ugha ik;k tkuk o fojks/kkHkkl gksus ds dkj.k oknxzLr edku oknh }kjk dHkh lk/kqjke ;k vCnqy jtkd dks fdjk;s ij fn;k x;k gh ugha ekuk tk ldrkA blds vfrfjDr Hkh oknh us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mlls mlus izfroknh ls dCtk izkIr dj fy;k blds ckjs esa Hkh mldh lk{; esa fdlh izdkj dh laiqf"V ugha ikbZ tkrh gS] D;ksafd viuh izfr ijh{kk esa oknh us ;g crk;k gS fd eksrhyky us dCtk dc NksM+k mldh frfFk LVst mls ;kn ughaA dCtk NksM+us ds i'pkr~ eksrhyky ogha jgk] bldk Hkh mls irk ugha o eksrhyky dk edku fdjk;s ij nsus dh rkjh[k] fefr] ekg o laor~ Hkh og ugha crk ldrkA mlds vuqlkj lkq/kjke ds }kjk edku [kkyh djus ij ,d ekg rd edku [kkyh jguk crk;k x;k gS tcfd lk/kqjke dk dFku gS fd mlus edku [kkyh fd;k mlh fnu eksrhyky vk x;k FkkA blds fojks/k esa lq[knso tks eksrhyky dk iM+kSlh gS ds vuqlkj 30&35 lky ls oknxzLr edku esa eksrhyky gh jg jgk gS o izn'kZ ,&1 ls izn'kZ ,&4 esa oknxzLr ifjlj esa eksrhyky dk jguk gh ik;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj oknxzLr edku dks [kjhnus ds i'pkr~ oknh us izfroknh ls dCtk izkIr dj fy;k gks] ,slh oknh dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fo'oluh; u rks ekSf[kd lk{; gS o u gh fdlh Hkh izdkj dh izys[kh; lk{;A oknh o mlds }kjk izLrqr xokgksa ds vfHkdFkuksa esa fojks/kkHkkl o fdlh Hkh fcUnq ij mlds dFkuksa esa laiqf"V u gksus o izfroknh }kjk mlds fojks/k esa izLrqr lk{; ds voyksdu ds vk/kkj ij ;g fuf'pr :i ls dgk tk ldrk gS fd izfroknh us oknxzLr edku dk u rks dksbZ dCtk oknh dks fn;k o u gh dHkh fdjk;kA bu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g fu"d"kZ Hkh iw.kZ:i ls fudyrk gS fd oknh o izfroknh ds chp esa dHkh Hkh edku ekfyd o vfHk/kkjh dk fj'rk dk;e ugha gqvkA egt oknh ds }kjk oknxzLr ifjlj [kjhn ysus ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh dks vfHk/kkjh djkj ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA mi;qDr foosfpr vk/kkjksa ij ;g fook|d fo:) oknh r; fd;k tkrk gSA vuqrks"k vr% oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknh [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij nksuksa i{k [kpkZ viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA Sd/- ( Hkao: [kka ) vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&,d] chdkusjA " 6. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.1996 of the learned first appellate court is quoted herein below for ready reference:- fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fook|d la[;k ,d ds laca/k esa tks fu.kZ; fn;k gS mldk fu"d"kZ bl izdkj gS fd izfroknh }kjk oknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk NksM+k o oknh dks csp fn;k o mlds i'pkr~ iqu% vfHk/kkjh dh gSfl;r ls mlus oknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk izkIr fd;kA oknh us vius vfHkopuksa esa Hkh le; & le; ij la'kks/ku djk;s gSa ftlesa igys mls 30-6-71 ls izfroknh mldk 37@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;snkj gSA nwljs ls mlus edku izfroknh ls [kjhnuk crk;k o fQj dCtk izkIr fd;k tkuk o ckn esa vU; fdjk;snkjksa dks fdjk;s ij j[kk fQj fnukad 30-6-71 dks izfroknh dks ;g edku fdjk;s ij fn;k tkuk c;ku fd;kA vCnqy jtkd fdjk;snkj dks oknh us lk{; esa is'k ugha fd;k o lk/kqjke ds c;ku oknh ds c;kuksa ls esy ugha [kkrs gSa mls ;g Hkh irk ugha fd ikl ds edkuksa esa dkSu jgrs Fks mldk fo'ks"k Lohd'fr esa dFku gS fd oknxzLr edku esa dkSu jgrs Fks mldk fo'ks"k Lohd'fr esa dFku gS fd oknxzLr edku esa tc og jgrk Fkk rc izfroknh Hkh ogha ikl esa jgrk Fkk ysfdu fdlds edku esa jgrk Fkk mls irk ughaA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lk{; ds foospu ds nkSjku vafdr fd;k gS fd lk/kqjke dks dc fdjk;s ij fn;k blds ckjs esa jkorukFk Hkh fo'ks"k rkSj ij ugha dgrk gSA lk/kqjke dks ;g Hkh irk ugha fd mlus oknh ls edku dc fdjk;s ij fy;k Fkk ,sls esa lk/kqjke dk oknh dk fdjk;snkj gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA mDr dkj.k ls lk/kqjke dk oknxzLr ifjlj esa fdjk;snkj dh gSfl;r ls jguk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl izdkj ,d fdjk;snkj dks oknh }kjk lk{khd{k esa is'k gh ugha fd;k tkuk ,oa nwljs dh lk{; dh laiqf"V oknh dh lk{; ls ugha gksrhA oknh viuh lk{; esa og Hkh iw.kZr% fl) ugha dj ldk gS fd mlus eksrhyky ls dCtk fdl fnukad o"kZ ekg frfFk fefr dks izkIr fd;k ftlds dkj.k ;g fl) ugha gksrk fd oknh us eksrhyky us dCtk fooknxzLr ifjlj dk izkIr dj fy;k FkkA xokg lq[knso }kjk eksrhyky dks oknxzLr edku esa 30&35 lkyksa ls jguk dgk gS ,oa bZ ,Dl ,0&1 o bZ ,Dl0 4 nLrkost esa eksrhyky dk jguk gh ik;k gSA bl izdkj oknh }kjk oknxzLr edku dks dz; fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ izfroknh ls dCtk izkIr dj fy;k gks] ,slh oknh dh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ls lkfcr ugha gSA izfroknh }kjk izLrqr lk{; ls ;g fuf'pr :i ls dgk tk ldrk gS fd oknh }kjk izfroknh ls edku ifjlj dz; fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ dCtk izkIr ugha fd;k x;k ,oa u gh fdjk;k izkIr fd;k x;kA mDr fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij ;g fu"d"kZ Hkh fl) gksrk gS fd oknh }kjk izfroknh dks dHkh edku fdjk;s ij ugha fn;k x;k ,oa u gh oknh o izfroknh ds e/; edku ekfyd o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k LFkkfir gq,A bl izdkj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fook|d la[;k ,d dk fu.kZ; oknh ds fo:) o izfroknh & izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gS mlesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ dkuwuh =qfV izrhr ugha gksrh gSA fook|d la[;k ,d ds fu.kZ; esa oknh o izfroknh ds e/; fdjk;snkj o edku ekfyd dk laca/k gksuk ugha ekuk tkus ij eSa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk 'ks"k fcUnqvksa ij tks fu.kZ; fn;k x;k gS mlls iw.kZ :i ls lger gwaA vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g rdZ fd bl izdj.k esa vkaf'kd foHkktu dh rudh dk;e ugha dh xbZ gS bl fy, izdj.k dks iqu% fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks Hkstk tkos] bl laca/k esa tc i{kdkjku ds e/; fdjk;snkj o edku ekfyd dk laca/k gh dk;e gksuk ugha ekuk x;k gS ,sls esa bl izdkj dk fook|d dk;e fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha FkkA vr% fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk mDr rdZ Hkh ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA mijksDr foospu tks fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k gS ftlesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ dkuwuh =qfV izrhr ugha gksrh gS vr% fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; esa fdlh izdkj dk ifjorZu fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ dh vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k vihy vihykFkhZ lO;; [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku eqaflQ] chdkusj ds fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 24-09-81 ftlds }kjk oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA fMdzh ipkZ rS;kj gksA Sd/- ( v'kksd dqekj R;kxh ) vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&1] chdkusj ( jktLFkku ) 7. Mr. K.C. Samdariya, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiff relying upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. Gopal Lal Rawat reported in 1986 RLW 618 submitted that the suit property was purchased from the defendant, Motiram @ Motilal by a registered sale-deed in 1956, to which no challenge was ever laid by the defendant, Motilal and except bald denial of such sale, the defendant claimed that he continued to remain in possession of the suit property throughout; and he himself was the owner of the suit property. He further submitted that though between the year 1956 to 1971 the suit house was let-out by the plaintiff to two tenants, namely, S/Sh. Abdul Razak and Sadhuram and one of the tenant, viz. Sadhuram, was produced before the trial court as PW.2. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the original plaintiff, PW.1, Sh. Rawat Nath, clearly stated before the trial court that at the time of sale in the year 1956 itself the possession of the suit property (a residential house) was handed over by the defendant, Motilal to the plaintiff and thereafter various tenants were kept in the suit property, however, on 30.06.1971, the house in question was again let-out to the defendant, Motiram @ Motilal at a monthly rent of Rs. 37/-, but no rent-note was executed, and therefore, such relationship of landlord-tenant was sought to be established only with the oral evidence of the plaintiff/appellant and PW.2 Sadhuram; and in such circumstances, the decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, as admittedly the defendant never paid any rent to the plaintiff, and also personal and bona fide need of the landlord, the decree of eviction ought to have been granted by the courts below, but the learned courts below have denied such decree only on the ground that the relationship of landlord tenant was not established by the plaintiff, even though, both the courts below found the factum of sale by defendant, Motiram @ Motilal, in favour of plaintiff, Sh. Rawat Nath. 8. Rawat Nath. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that even if the decree of eviction under the Rent Control Law could not be granted, in the alternative the decree of possession ought to have been given in favour of plaintiff in the same suit, avoiding any further requirement of filing separate suit for possession by the plaintiff in view of aforesaid Full Bench decision. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Salil Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/defendant urged that on account of inconsistencies in the statements of PW.1, Sh. Rawat Nath himself and PW.2, namely, Sh. Sadhuram, and there being no other documentary evidence viz. tenancy agreement between the parties, the eviction decree under Section 13 of the Act of 1950 could not have been granted by the courts below, and was rightly refused by the courts below and such concurrent findings of two courts below do not require interference by this Court. He also urged that the decree of possession cannot be given in this suit in view of the fact that separate suit was later on filed by the plaintiff being Civil Suit No.183/2001 (re-numbered) Rawat Nath v. Motiram @ Motilal, was already filed by the plaintiff later in the competent authority, namely, A.C.J.M. No.2, Bikaner, where the suit is still pending consideration and, therefore, such decree of possession also cannot be given to the plaintiff in the present suit. He also submitted that in the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to raise various defences including setting up for his own title or title by adverse possession etc. Therefore, the present second appeal deserves to be dismissed answering the question of law, framed above, against the plaintiff/appellant. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Sharma (supra). 11. Therefore, the present second appeal deserves to be dismissed answering the question of law, framed above, against the plaintiff/appellant. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Sharma (supra). 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Full Bench decision of this Court, almost in similar circumstances as obtaining in the present case with further advantage of the plaintiff in the present of having a registered sale-deed in his favour executed by the defendant, Motilal @ Motiram in the year 1956, which still holds the field even now, answers all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the defendant/tenant in the present case; and the Full Bench of this Court has clearly laid down in the said judgment that in a suit based on relationship of landlord and tenant making prayer for eviction on the ground set forth under Section 13 of the Act of 1950, a decree for possession can be granted in favour of plaintiff on the basis of his title if such an issue is decided by the court in favour of plaintiff. The relevant portion of the full bench judgment of this Court, which it is doubtless binding on this Court, including the contentions raised before the Full Bench, are quoted herein below for ready reference:- "6. The controversy raised in the case is that when a suit is filed for eviction on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant on the grounds provided under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), can a decree for possession be granted on the basis of ownership and title of the plaintiff, when relationship of landlord and tenant is not held established between the parties? 7. Mr. R. M. Lodha, learned Counsel for the defendant appellant submitted that in a suit for ejectment based on the relationship of landlord and tenant, the question of title cannot be gone into. It was further submitted that even if any issue regarding ownership and title of the suit property is framed, the inquiry in that issue should only be restricted so far it was relevant for deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further submitted that even if any issue regarding ownership and title of the suit property is framed, the inquiry in that issue should only be restricted so far it was relevant for deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further submitted that the suit for possession based on ownership and title is totally different from a suit based on the relationship of landlord and tenant. It has been argued by Mr. Lodha that if the present suit is converted into a title suit, the defendant suffers a serious prejudice because she is deprived of setting up a case of adverse possession, or, that suit was not triable by the learned Munsif, or, that the court fees paid were insufficient and all such other pleas which would have been available to the defendant to contest a suit for possession based on tide. It was further submitted by Mr. Lodha that the suit in substance was filed on the basis of tenancy and the grounds of ejectment were based on Section 13 of the Act, and in these circumstances the plaintiff cannot be permitted to set up a new case based on ownership and title. Mr. Lodha in support of his above contentions placed reliance on Govind Kumar Sur v. Mohini Mohan Sen (AIR 1930 Cal 42), S.K.M. Sivasubramania Nadar v. S.S.K. Subramania Nadar (AIR 1932 Mad 409) Ms. Abdullah v. Salehabi (AIR 1953 Hyderabad 234), The Sibsagar Municipal Board, Sibsagar v. Dayal Chandra Barthakur (AIR 1971 Assam 155) Lekhraj Diddi v. Sawan Singh (AIR 1971 Madh Pra 172), and Badri Prasad v. Ganesh Prasad ( AIR 1977 SC 2047 ). 8. On the other hand Mr. S. K. Keshote appeared on behalf of the plaintiff respondent as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Mr. Keshote submitted that the defendant herself had raised a plea in the written statement that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit premises. The defendant had not only denied the ownership of the plaintiff, but had also set up a clear plea that, she was the owner of the suit premises. On the basis of the above case set up by the defendant, a specific issue regarding title was framed by the trial Court and thereafter both the parties had led evidence and the trial Court decided the issue against the defendant. On the basis of the above case set up by the defendant, a specific issue regarding title was framed by the trial Court and thereafter both the parties had led evidence and the trial Court decided the issue against the defendant. The defendant having set up a definite case of title, having joined the issue and having led the evidence is not entitled to argue that question of title could not have been decided by the Court in a suit based on tenancy, specially when such issue of title has been decided against the defendant. It was also submitted that there is no question of any prejudice to the defendant when, she herself has raised the question of title in order to non suit the claim of the plaintiff based on the relationship of landlord and tenant. It has been submitted that no objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court can be raised after the final decision of the suit. Reliance in support of the above contentions is placed on Abdul Ghani v. Mussammat Babni, (1903) ILR 25 All 256 (FB). Balmakund v. Dalu, (1903) ILR 25 All 498 (FB). Mulibai v. Vassibai, AIR 1926 Sind 98, Rama Shankar v. Bidhey Khan, AIR 1976 All 155 : 1976 Ren CR 216 and Kolathoor Vaiath v. Pairaprakottoth Cheriya - Kumhahammad Haji, AIR 1974 SC 689 . 9. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. 10. The plaintiff had come forward with a case in the plaint that the defendant had taken certain premises belonging to the plaintiff on rent on 1-7-72 at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. for putting certain goods temporarily for two months. The defendant was handed over possession and she had agreed to pay Rs. 100/-as advance rent of 2 months within a day or two. The plaintiff did not get any rent deed executed, and subsequently the defendant committed a breach of trust and neither paid any rent nor vacated the suit premises after two months. It was also alleged that defendant made material alterations in the suit premises, and the suit premises were required for reasonable and bona fide necessity of the plaintiff. The defendant totally denied the averments made in the plaint. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit premises. It was also alleged that defendant made material alterations in the suit premises, and the suit premises were required for reasonable and bona fide necessity of the plaintiff. The defendant totally denied the averments made in the plaint. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit premises. There was a temple of Shivji on the spot and the defendant being Brahmin by caste was doing Seva Puja of the temple for a long time. The defendant was having a room and a Tibara in a dilapidated condition and she herself got the same improved. The defendant never took possession of the suit premises from the plaintiff nor she ever agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- p.m. nor there was any talk to permit the defendant to put her goods temporarily for 2 months. It was further pleaded that there was no question of giving any assurance to execute any rent deed because the defendant herself was the owner of the suit property. In the additional pleas it was further pleaded that the plaintiff had no concern at all with the suit premises nor he was the owner of the suit property and the suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The trial Court thereafter framed 9 issues, including issues Nos. 1 and 8 us already mentioned above. No objection was raised on behalf of either of the parties that there was no necessity to frame any issue regarding ownership of the suit premises as the suit was based on the relationship of landlord and tenant only. 11. There can be no manner of doubt that where a suit for ejectment is filed on the basis of tenancy and relationship of landlord and tenant, then such suit should not be converted into a title suit based on ownership and the controversy should be decided on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant only. But in the present case as already mentioned above the defendant herself came forward with a plea that plaintiff is not the owner and she herself was the owner of the suit premises. But in the present case as already mentioned above the defendant herself came forward with a plea that plaintiff is not the owner and she herself was the owner of the suit premises. Not only that an issue was also framed in this regard and both the parties led evidence and after the decision of such issue having gone against the defendant by the trial Court, the defendant has raised an objection that the issue of title should not have been decided in the present suit which was based on tenancy and relationship of land lord and tenant alone. We have gone through all the cases on which reliance is placed by Mr. Lodha and in none of these cases, the facts were identical to the case in hand before us. There is no case cited by Mr. Lodha in which after a plea taken in the written statement that plaintiff was not the owner but defendant was the owner and thereafter issue having been framed and parties having led evidence and having taken a decision on such issue, may have raised an objection in appeal that question of title could not have been decided in a suit based on tenancy. We do not therefore consider it necessary to discuss every case cited by Mr. Lodha in detail. 12. On the other hand there is a direct case reported in AIR 1976 All 155 : 1976 Ren CR 216, Rama Shankar v. Bidhey Khan, R.B.Misra, J. (as he then was) clearly held as under : "The plaintiff filed a suit against defendant for ejectment, arrears of rent etc. on the basis that there was a contract of tenancy between him and the defendant. The plaintiff, however, failed to prove the contract of tenancy. The defendant claimed adverse possession and title to the suit premises which plea was negatived by lower courts. It was urged by the plaintiff that even if he failed to prove the contract to tenancy, he was entitled to a decree for possession on the basis of title. The Court can pass a decree for possession on the basis of title even if the plaintiff had failed to prove the contract of tenancy put up by him provided no prejudice is caused to the other side. The Court can pass a decree for possession on the basis of title even if the plaintiff had failed to prove the contract of tenancy put up by him provided no prejudice is caused to the other side. In the instant case, both the parties led evidence on the question of title and there was a definite issue framed on the question of title, there is no question of any prejudice being caused to the defendants. In these circumstances, the suit should have been decreed on the question of title though the plaintiff failed to prove the contract of tenancy." 13. A similar view has been taken in (1903) ILR 25 All 256 (FB) and (1903) ILR 25 All 498 (FB). In (1903) ILR 25 All 256 : "The defendant denied the tenancy set up by the plaintiff and asserted that she had been in adverse possession for a period of seventeen years. The finding of the appellate Court was that the plaintiff was the owner of the house and that the defendant occupied the house as a friend with the permission of the plaintiff and that the defendant had never before this asserted her title to the house, and that her possession was permissive. On these findings, it was held by the Full Bench that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession notwithstanding that his case had been that the defendant was his tenant." 14. There can be no manner of dispute that in a suit for eviction on the basis of tenancy, all that need be gone into is whether there is a contract of tenancy between the parties and if the plaintiff fails to prove such contract of tenancy, then the court is entitled to dismiss such suit. But in a case where the question of title has also been gone into and the parties were at issue on the point of title and the parties had led evidence, it would not be just and proper to direct the plaintiff to file another suit for possession on the basis of title. Law Courts always discourage and abhore the multiplicity of suits. The only relevant circumstance in such a case would be whether any prejudice has been occasioned to the other side. 15. Mr. Law Courts always discourage and abhore the multiplicity of suits. The only relevant circumstance in such a case would be whether any prejudice has been occasioned to the other side. 15. Mr. Lodha has contended that if a suit on the basis of title had been filed then the defendant would have shown that her possession was not permissive, that it was a case of adverse possession, that the suit was not triable by the Munsif Court and the Court fees paid were insufficient. There is no question of any prejudice on the above grounds raised by Mr. Lodha. The defendant has clearly come forward with a plea that she herself was the owner of the suit premises. In view of the above plea taken by the defendant there was no question of setting up a case on the basis of adverse possession and in any case when she had joined the issue of title she could have raised this plea also. Apart from that learned courts below while considering issue No. 1 have discussed the evidence in detail and have found that the defendant was not in possession of the suit property up to 1970. The present suit was filed on 21-12-73 and in this view of the matter also there was no ground or justification for taking the plea of adverse possession. The case regarding permissive possession could have been set up by the defendant to non suit the case based on tenancy, but the defendant set up a hostile title in herself. So far as the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned Subsection (2) of Section 21 C.P.C. clearly lays down that no objection as to the competence of a court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by an Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. Thus in the facts and circumstances of this case, no objection on the ground of any prejudice to the defendant is sustainable. 16. Thus in the facts and circumstances of this case, no objection on the ground of any prejudice to the defendant is sustainable. 16. Our answer therefore to the questions referred is : (1) In a suit based on the relationship between the landlord and tenant, making prayer for eviction on the grounds set forth under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, a decree for possession can be granted in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of his title. (2) When any issue is framed on the basis of allegation of title of the plaintiff and the defendant asserts his own title and denies the plaintiffs title and both the parties lead evidence without raising any objection, question of prejudice caused to, the defendant may be seen if decree for; possession is to be granted on proof of title of the plaintiff. 17. It is however, made clear that, as a general rule where a suit is filed on the basis of tenancy and relationship of landlord and tenant then such suit should be decided on the basis of tenancy alone, and it should not be converted into a title suit. However, in a given case, as the present one where, the defendant herself sets up a title adverse to the plaintiff and/or does not raise an objection in framing an issue on the basis of title and leads evidence with full knowledge arid the trial Court gives an adverse finding on such issue against the defendant, then the defendant cannot be permitted to advance the plea in the Appellate Court or Revisional Court that no decree for possession can be granted in such a case. It would be a different matter where the trial Court may suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction not falling within the purview of Section 21, C.P.C. or the defendant may make out a clear case of prejudice with no fault or laches or acquiescence on his part. Such case may be rare, but it would be left to the discretion of the Court and in such rare case the Court may refuse to grant any decree for possession. 18. Such case may be rare, but it would be left to the discretion of the Court and in such rare case the Court may refuse to grant any decree for possession. 18. As learned single Judge has not only referred the legal questions but has also observed that the entire appeal may be decided by this Court and as we have gone through the entire record of the case in detail we find no force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this Court." 12. After a careful reading of the said judgment of the Full Bench this Court finds no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants in the present case. Admittedly, the respondent/defendant, has never laid any proper challenge to the registered sale-deed executed by himself in the year 1956 in favour of plaintiff, Rawat Nath, which inter-alia, contained a stipulation that the plaintiff/purchaser has received the possession of the suit property from the seller. Admittedly, the respondent/defendant, has never laid any proper challenge to the registered sale-deed executed by himself in the year 1956 in favour of plaintiff, Rawat Nath, which inter-alia, contained a stipulation that the plaintiff/purchaser has received the possession of the suit property from the seller. The said sale-deed duly compared with the original sale-deed dated 06.01.1956, is on record as Exhibit- 2 and the relevant portion of the sale-deed in the preamble thereof containing stipulation of handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- cSukek edku euds eksrhyky oYn iwukjke tkr ukbZ lkfdu chdkusj dk gwa tks fd feu eqfdj dk esjs nks HkkbZ Nxuyky lk fd'ku ds lkFk nqdku esa lkeku Mkyus ds fy, jkorukFk fl/k lkfdu cEcyw ls eq'rjdk djtk fy;k gqvk gS ftldk lwn c<+rk tk jgk gSA gekjs ikl dtkZ pqdkus ds fy, uxn :i;s ugha gS blfy, bl dtkZ dks jQk djus ds fy, eSa viuk edku ntxth 200 c:, iV~Vk uEcjh 409 rkjh[k 15-9-51 okds ekSgYyk c[rlkxj chnklj ckjh ckgj 'kgj chdkusj ftldk fd eSa rUgk ekfyd ok dkfct gwa dks 1000@& v[kjS :i;k ,d gtkj eSa eqLEeh jkorukFk oYn x.kirukFk fl?k lkfdru cEcyw dks cS drbZ djrk gwa vkSj fy[k nsrk gwa fd vkt ls igys tks gd gdwd eq> ck;k dks bl edku ij gkfly Fks oksg rekeks deky vc eq'rjh dks gkfly gksaxs dCtk edku eqcS;k ij eq'rjh dk djk fn;k x;k gS vkt ls igys og edku fdlh nwljs 'k[l ds ;gka jgu ;k cS fd;k gqok ugha gS uk fdlh dh dqdhZ esa gS uk dksbZ erkyck jkt jh ckdh gS vkSj uk fdlh dk fgLlk ikfUr gS vxj dksbZ ckr fudy vkosxh rks ml lcdh tqEesokjh eq> ck;k dh gksxh eq'rjh ls dksbZ okLrku gksxk iV~Vk gokys eq'rjh dj fn;k x;k gS bl cspoku ds :i;s 1000@& igys gh cs:u vnkyr lc jftLV~kj lkgc eq'rjh ls fy;s gqos gS tks gekjs [kkrs esa tek djk fn;s x;s gSA " 13. The original Patta of the suit property was also produced before the trial court and a compared copy whereof is produced by the plaintiff is Exhibit-3 on record. The original Patta of the suit property was also produced before the trial court and a compared copy whereof is produced by the plaintiff is Exhibit-3 on record. It would be also pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of statement of PW.1, Rawat Nath and PW.2, Sadhuram here, because relying upon some portions thereof only, the courts below have refused the eviction decree, which in the opinion of this Court, were read out of context by the courts below. The statement of PW.1, Rawat Nath in the first instance was recorded by the learned trial court on 26.09.1975, which was later on continued on 21.09.1978 and 09.08.1979. The statement of PW.1, Rawat Nath in the first instance was recorded by the learned trial court on 26.09.1975, which was later on continued on 21.09.1978 and 09.08.1979. The said statement in extenso is quoted herein below for ready reference:- Statement dated 26.09.1975:- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dgrk gwa fd esjk uke jkorukFk firk dk uke x.kir ukFk th tkfr fl/k vk;q 68 o"kZ O;olk; [ksrh fuoklh chdkusj rglhy chdkusj ftyk chdkusj us cgye cloky odhy oknh c;ku fd;k fd eSa eksrhyky izfroknh dks tkurk gwaA eksrhyky izfroknh dks ,d edku fdjk;s ij fn;k FkkA edku dk fdjk;k 37@& :0 izfrekg dh nj ls FkkA ;g edku 6 ekg ds fy;s fn;k Fkk vkSj izfroknh us dgk Fkk fd tc Hkh eq>s edku dh t:jr gksxh rc edku [kkyh dj nwaxkA fdjk;k izfrekg vnk djus dk eqgk;nk fd;k FkkA edku tsl cgl chnklj dh ckjh] chdkusj ds ikl gSA edku esa mRrjkns bLekbZy dk edku gS nf{k.k esa rstkjke czkgE.k dk edku gS] vxq.k esa fyywjke Lokeh dk edku gS vkSj vkFkw.k esa xyh cgrh gS vkSj bl edku eksM+k gSA izfroknh us edku fdjk;k ysus ds ckn dksbZ fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;kA edku eqruktk dh eq>s Lo;a dks t:jr gSA eSa viuk bZykt ;gka djokrk gwa vkSj nwljk edku fdjk;s ysdj jgrk gwaA tc eSaus eqdnek nk;j fd;k ml le; rd izfroknh esa fdjk;s isVs 629@& okftc ckdh Fks vkSj 50@& :0 gtkZuk ds o 2@& uksfVl [kpkZ ds izfroknh esa okftc ckdh gSA edku dh eq>s Lo;a dks t:jr gSA edku [kkyh djkus dk uksfVl fn;k Fkk ftldk izfroknh us dksbZ tokc ugha fn;kA uksfVl iksLV vkfQl dh ekQZr fn;k FkkA iksLV vksfQl jlhn Ex.1 gSA ;g edku eSaus izfroknh ls [kjhn fd;k FkkA edku fy;k mldh dksbZ fy[kk i<+h gqbZ Fkh D;kA ,rjkt odhy izfroknh%& odhy izfroknh dk ,srjkt gS fd ,slh dksbZ pleadings nkos esa ugha gS blfy, ;g loky ugha iwNk tk ldrk\ mUgksaus ;g Hkh tkfgj fd;k fd bldh ckcr~ vnkyr esa Hkh nj0 ns nh gSA vr% ;g eqn~nk vnkyr }kjk r; djok;s fcuk 'kgknr ugha yh nh tk ldrhA Sd/- gLrk{kj jkorukFk Sd/- 'kadjyky o"kZ Advocate Statement continued on dated 21.9.78 l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd esjk uke jkorukFk S/o x.kir ukFk tkfr fl) mez 70 /kU/kk [ksrh fuoklh Hkeyw eSa eksrhyky dks tkurk gwa edku fdjk;s ij bls fn;k Fkk 37@& :i;s eghus ds fdjk;s ij bls edku fn;k FkkA fdjk;k eq>s 2&3 o"kZ rd fn;kA edku bls fn;s 5&7 lky gks x;s gS iwjk esjk ugha gSA edku chnklj dh ckjh esa gS edku HkkM+s nsus dh fy[kk i<+h ugha djkbZA uksfVl ;qxyukjk;.k th odhy ds ekQZr fnyk;k FkkA uksfVl dh iksLVy jlhn is'k dh gS oks Ex.1 gSA edku eSa blfy;s [kkyh djkuk pkgrk gwa eSa jguk pkgrk gwaA eSa HkkM+k nsdj nwljs edku esa jgrk gwaA ;ks0 vfHkHkk"kd oknh dk dguk gS fd blesa la'kksf/kr oknh esa iSjk uEcj 1A ds ckcr~ rudh ugha cuh gS u rqyukRed ijs'kkuh ds ckcr~ rudh cuh gS vr% blds c;ku ckn esa djkuk pkgrs gSA c;ku reserve j[kk tkrk gSA rufd;ku esa la'kks/ku djds c;ku gksaxs xokgku tks mifLFkr gS mudk bUgha rufd;ku ckr c;ku gS rks c;ku fy;s tkosaxsA Sd/- jkorukFk Statement on oath dt. 9.8.79 eSa fl)ksa ds Msjs esa fdjk;s ij jgrk gwaA fooknxzLr edku eq>s Lo;a ds jgus ds fy, pkfg,A esjk iksrk ;gka ij i<+rk gS tks vyx jgrk gS o fdjk;s ds Rs.50/- nsrk gS rFkk eSa Rs.55/- izfrekg fdjk;k nsrk gwaA esjk iksrk esjs lkFk blfy, ugha jgrk fd eSa o') gwa ,oa eq>ls og 'keZ j[krk gSA vr% vyx edku ysdj i<+rk gS ftldk fdjk;k eSa gh nsrk gwa A fooknxzLr edku eSaus eksrhyky izfroknh ls gh [kjhnk ftldk cspkuukek Ex.2 gSA bl edku dk iV~Vk eksrhyky us eq>s fn;k Fkk tks Ex.3 gSA vCnqy jtkd bl fooknxzLr edku esa jgs FksA lk/kqjke tkV Hkh bl edku esa jgk FkkA tks cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj jgs FksA Cross Examination: ;g edku eksrhyky ds iwoZtksa dk gksxk rks irk ugha bl edku dk iV~Vk igys eksrhyky ds firk iw.kZth ds uke dk cuk gqvk gksxk rks irk ughaA ;g edku [kjhnk mldk laor fefr ekg ;kn ughaA ;g edku fcnklj dh ckjh esa gSA tks 200 xt tehu ij gSA bl edku dk lu~ 1956 esa Rs.20/- xt dk Hkko gksxk rks eq>s irk ughaA bl edku esa ,d lky ,d vksjk o jlksbZ iyh.Mh uky cus gq, gSA mij dejk ugha gSA ;g edku 1956 esa 10]000@& dk ugha FkkA eksrhyky bl edku esa tUek gksxk rks irk ughaA edku eSaus [kjhnk rc eksrhyky us eq>s dCtk ns fn;k Fkk o 8 o"kZ rd esjk dCtk jgk o eSaus fdjk;snkj j[ksA ;g xyr gS fd eksrhyky us dHkh dCtk ugha NksM+k ,oa og cjkcj blh esa jgkA eksrhyky us dCtk dc NksM+kA frfFk laor~ ;kn ugha] xehZ dh ekSle FkhA eksrhyky 8 o"kZ rd esjs ikl dCtk jgkA rc dgka jgk ;g irk ughaA ekSgYyk Hkh ugha crk ldrkA eksrhyky dks edku fdjk;s ij eSaus fn;k mldh rkjh[k] fefr] ekg laor~ ugha crk ldrkA fdjk;k ij ysus dh ckr tsB ;k vlk<+ ekg esa esjs ?kj ij gh gqbZ tks fooknxzLr edku esa gh gqbZ rc lk/kqjke tkV Hkh ogka ekStwn FkkA lk/kqjke tkV bl edku esa 2025 esa fdjk;s ij jgk tks 4&5 ekg jgk ,oa Rs.37/- izfrekg fdjk;k nsrk FkkA tks xk; o HkSal ysdj ;gka vk;k FkkA mu fnuksa eSa Hkh lk/kq ds lkFk gh Bgjrk FkkA ckdh jgrk esjs xkao ceyw esa FkkA lk/kqjke us ;g edku tsB ;k v"kk<+ ekg esa [kkyh fd;k FkkA fQj lk/kqjke okfil xkao pyk x;k fQj ;g edku ,d ekg rd [kkyh iM+k jgkA lk/kqjke us edku [kkyh fd;k mlh fnu eksrhyky us edku ysus dh ckr dhA ml le; eksrhyky dgka jgrk Fkk irk ughaA eksrhyky dks cqyk;k ugha Fkk] og fQjrs 2 Lora= gh vk x;k FkkA vCnqy jtkd fjM+eylj ds fuoklh gSA tks vktdy dgka jgrs gS irk ughaA budks ;g edku dc fdjk;s ij fn;k /;ku ughaA ;g xyr gS fd eksrhyky us eq>s [kkyh dCtk dHkh ugha fn;k ,oa eSaus fdjk;snkj ugha j[ksA vCnqy jtkd ls fy[kk i<+h fdjk;s dh djkbZ FkhA lk/kq ls fy[kk i<+h ugha djkbZA vCnqy jtkd bl edku esa fdrus vjls rd jgk irk ughaA mlus eq>s Rs.18/- izfrekg fdjk;k fn;k FkkA vCnqy jtkd blesa jgk rc eSa xkao jgrk FkkA ;g edku esjs dCts esa vkus ds ckn dqN le; [kkyh Hkh jgk tks fdrus vjlk jgk /;ku ughaA eSa vHkh Hkh xkao esa ugha jgrk gwaA ;qxyukjk;.kh th ls uksfVl dc fnyok;k fefr ekg] lu~ ;kn ughaA eksrhyky us 5&7 ekg rd eq>s fdjk;k fn;k ftldk dksbZ fyf[kr fglkc esjs ikl ugha gSA ;g xyr gS fd eksrhyky us ;g edku fdjk;s ij dHkh ugha fy;k o eq>s fdjk;k Hkh ugha fn;kA chdkusj esa esjk ;gh ,d gh edku gSA " 14. The statements of PW.2, Sadhuram, one of the tenant, named by the plaintiff, who lived in the said residential house, were also recorded by the learned trial court on 09.08.1979 and the said short statement is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- "9.8.79 eSa gYQ ls lkSxU/k ls dgrk gwa fd esjk uke lk/kqjke firk dk uke iqj[kkjke dkSe tkV mez 63 o"kZ is'kk [ksrh fuokl ceyw rglhy chdkusj oknh o izfroknh dks tkurk gwaA chnklj dh ckjh esa jkorukFk dk edku eSaus fdjk;s ij fy;k tks Rs.37/- izfrekg ls fdjk;s ij fy;kA blesa eSa 6&7 ekg rd jgkA esjs ckn eksrhyky us ;g edku fy;kA eSaus edku NksM+k mlls igys mlus eq>s iwNk fd rqe dc rd jgksxs fQj eSaus NksM+k mlh fnu og vk x;k o jkorukFk dks dgk rqe dgksxs tc NksM+ nwaxkA ftl ij jkorukFk us ;g edku mls ns fn;kA Cross Examination:- jkorukFk dks eSa tUe ls tkurk gwaA jkorukFk :i;s m/kkj nsus ds xkao esa ysu nsu djrk gSA og cgh;kr j[krk gS ;k ugha irk ughaA ;g fdrus :i;ksa dk ysu&nsu djrk gS ;g irk ughaA eSa bl edku esa vkdj jgk rc jkorukFk gh bl edku esa jgrk Fkk tks dHkh xkao jgrk dHkh ;gkaA eSa fdl laor~ fefr dks jgk ;kn ugha eghuk fexlj dk FkkA ;g ckr fdrus vjls dh gS iwNus ij dgk 2025 ls fxu yks eSa ugha crk ldrkA chdkusj esa 1996 esa Hkh eSa fl)ks ds Msjs esa jgk Fkk tks fdjk;s ij ugha jgk blds ckn 2025 esa gh chdkusj vkdj jgkA blds ckn Hkh edku fdjk;s ij ysdj chdkusj esa dHkh ugha jgkA fooknxzLr edku esa eSa jgk rc vkl&ikl dkSu jgrs Fks ,d Hkh uke ;kn ughaA bl edku ds vkl ikl dksbZ efUnj Hkh gS ;k ugha irk ughaA gekjk xkao chdkusj ls 16 ehy nwj gSA gekjs xkao okys nw/k ;gka chdkusj esa ykdj csprs Fks vktdy rks Dairy okys ogh vkdj ys tkrs gSaA eSa chdkusj esa nks HkSal ysdj vkdj bl edku esa jgk Fkk tks blfy, jgk D;ksafd ogka ?kkl ugha feyrk FkkA ;g ?kkl xkao ys tkrk rks fdjk;k yxrkA ceyw esa 400 ?kjksa dh vkcknh gSA gekjs xkao ds lq[kk] Qwlk oxSjk 5&7 vkneh ml o"kZ chdkusj jgus vk;s FksA eksrhyky dks tUe ls tkurk gwaA fooknxzLr edku esa eSa jgk rc eksrh Hkh ogh ikl esa jgrk Fkk tks fdlds edku esa jgk irk ughaA eksrh jgrk Fkk og edku eSa vkt ugha crk ldrk eksrh esjs ;gka rks 1&2 nQk vk;k FkkA eSa mlds ;gka dHkh ugha x;kA eksrh esjs ikl edku eSaus [kkyh fd;k mlesa 15 fnu igys vk;k Fkk rc eSaus mls dgk fd ml fnu edku [kkyh d:axk fQj eSaus [kkyh fd;k ml fnu jkorukFk Hkh ogka FksA eSaus ;g edku [kkyh fd;k mlh fnu eksrhyky dks ns fn;kA eksrhyky us edku esa lkeku esjs :c: rks ugha Mkyk D;k irk nwljs fnu vk;k ;k mlh fnuA eSaus ;g edku fy;k mlds igys bl edku ij eSa 2&4 nQk x;k Fkk tks esjs edku ysus ls 1&2 o"kZ igys ls bl edku esa x;k FkkA ;g edku eksrh dk gksuk eq>s irk ughaA ;g xyr gS fd eksrhyky gh lnSo ls bl edku esa jgrk vk;k gSA ;g xyr gS fd eSa bl edku esa dHkh ugha jgkA Sd/- lk/kqjke " 15. As against this, the bald denial of the sale as well as possession having been handed over by the defendant (DW.1 Motilal) in his statement recorded by the learned trial court on 09.10.1979 is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- esjk uke eksrhyky firk dk uke iw.kZey th dkSe ukbZ vk;q 60 o"kZ is'kk csdkj fuoklh chdkusj eSa chnklj ckjh ds ckgj esjs gh edku esa jgrk gwaA fooknxzLr edku dk ekfyd eSa gwaA ;g edku eSaus 27-8-56 ;k vkSj fdlh rkjh[k dks jkorukFk dks ugha cspk rFkk jkorukFk dks bl edku dk dHkh dCtk Hkh ugha fn;kA cspkuukek Ex.2 ij A ls B esjs gLrk{kj ugha gSA uchcD'k ls eSaus cspkuukek dHkh ugha fy[kok;kA 30-6-71 dks ;k vkSj dHkh ;g edku eSaus jkorukFk ls dHkh fdjk;s ij ugha fy;kA lu~ 1956 esa ;g edku Rs. 10,000/- dh dher dk FkkA vHkh bl edku dh dher 20&25 gtkj :i;s gSA jkorukFk dks eSaus dHkh fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;kA bl edku esa vCnqy jtkd ;k vknqjke tkV dHkh ugha jgsA bl edku esa eSa tUe ls gh jg jgk gwaA jkorukFk bl edku esa dHkh ugha jgkA jkorukFk ls ;g edku eSaus fdjk;s ij ysus dh ckr vknwjke ds :c: dHkh ugha dhA Qwlkjke dkjhxj ls jkorukFk us bl edku dh dHkh ejEer ugha djkbZA ;g edku ,d eaftyk gSA ftlesa vksjk lkG] jlksbZ o ifj.Mh o Lukux'g cus gq, gSaA Cross Examination:- lu~ 1956 esa nqdkunkjh ugha djrk Fkk etnwjh djrk FkkA Hkaojyky us eq> ij nqdku [kkyh djus dk eqdnek ugha fd;k FkkA bl edku dk iV~Vk esjs ?kj esa ls [kks x;k ftldk fjiksVZ eSaus ugha dhA bl edku dk iV~Vk Ex.3 gSA ;g xyr gS fd ;g iV~Vk eSaus jkorukFk dks fn;k FkkA jkorukFk ls esjh dksbZ nq'euh ;k vnkor ugha gSA jkorukFk ls esjh nksLrh Hkh ugha gSA uchcD'k ls Hkh esjh dksbZ nq'euh ugha gSA uchcD'k dks tkurk rks gwa tks vthZfuos'k gSA Ex.2 cspkuukek dh iq'r ij E ls F gLrk{kj esjs ugha gSA oknksRrj fnukad 8-7-74 ij vius gLrk{kj bl xokg dks fn[kk;s x;s rks dgk ;g gLrk{kj esjs ugha gSA tokcnkok fnukad 19-04-77 ij xokg us vius gLrk{kj ns[kdj dgk ;g gLrk{kj esjs gSA Ex.2 cspkuukek ij esjs gLrk{kj ugha gS D;ksafd blesa QdZ gSA bl edku dk House Tax eSa ugha nsrkA lu~ 1956 ls bl edku dk jk'kudkMZ esjs uke dk cuk gqvk gSA ;g xyr gS fd eSaus ;g edku Ex.2 cspkuukek ds tfj;s jkorukFk dks csp fn;k FkkA ;g xyr gS fd jkorukFk us ;g edku fQj vCnqy jtkd dks fdjk;s ij fn;k FkkA ;g xyr gS fd lk/kqjke dks ;g edku jkorukFk us fdjk;s fn;k FkkA ;g xyr gS fd ckn eSa ;g edku 1971 esa Rs.37/- izfrekg ij fdjk;s fy;k FkkA jkorukFk dk uksfVl esjs ikl ugha vk;k FkkA jkorukFk dk chdkusj esa dksbZ edku ugha gSA jkorukFk xzke cEcyw esa jgrk gSA odkyrukek ij vius gLrk{kj crkus ij xokg us dgk ;g gLrk{kj esjs ugha gSA ;g xyr gS fd jsYos QkVd ds ikl esjh nqdku FkhA lk/kqjke ls esjh nq'euh ugha gS oknh dk mlls ysunsu gSA iwlkjke ls esjh dksbZ nq'euh ugha gS ijUrq og oknh ds ?kj dke djrk gSA Sd/- eksrhyky " 16. Having considered the aforesaid evidence on record, the reasons given by the court below and the Full Bench decision of this Court, this Court is of the considered and firm opinion that denial on the part of the defendant of the title of the plaintiff as well as landlord tenant relationship, was untenable and wrong. Mere non-execution of a rent-note or a documentary evidence of such relationship is not fatal, since the tenancy as the Act of 1950, could be even oral. The categoric statement of tenancy having been created in favour of defendant on 30.06.1971 after long gap of sale of the suit property by the defendant in favour of plaintiff in the year 1956 (06.01.1956) and in between such long period, two tenants having lived in that suit house, is sufficient to dislodge the bald denial of the defendant/tenant and his averment that he continued to remain in suit house throughout and the sale in question be it a registered document, was a sham transaction. 17. Had it been so, he (defendant) could have challenged the said sale-deed in appropriate proceedings but never it was done by him. Merely because he was put in possession as a tenant by the plaintiff/appellant, Rawat Nath on 30.06.1971, and he failed to get any written rent-note executed and defendant did not pay any rent, it does not mean that relationship of tenancy did not exist between the parties and was not proved before the courts below. The courts below have, with great respects, ignored the relevant facts reiterated in the statements of the plaintiff's witness that after sale of suit property in favour of plaintiff in the year 1956, the property in question remained with the plaintiff and even let out the same at least two of the named tenants, viz. Abdul Razak and Sadhuram. As against this, not even an iota of evidence was led before the learned trial court by the defendant that during this long period of 14-15 years between 1956 till he continued to be in possession of the residential house in question throughout. The existence of two other tenants along with stipulation in the registered sale-deed that the possessing having been taken over by the purchaser in the year 1956, was enough to dislodge the sham defence put up by the defendant in the present case. The existence of two other tenants along with stipulation in the registered sale-deed that the possessing having been taken over by the purchaser in the year 1956, was enough to dislodge the sham defence put up by the defendant in the present case. But, the learned trial court as well as appellate court clearly fell into an error in holding that there were inconsistencies in the statements of plaintiff's witnesses where they state that the dates on which the tenants left the residential house in question and the defendant entered again in the suit property etc. are not remembered by them, was sufficient to hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant, was not established, are clearly perverse findings not based on any relevant evidence whatsoever. 18. The courts below even after holding in favour of plaintiff that sale by defendant was well proved, could not have ignored the factum of possession also taken over by the plaintiff/purchaser in the year 1956 coupled with subsequent tenancies created in favour of two tenants, as aforesaid. Merely because, the plaintiff has filed another suit for possession subsequently, as stated by learned counsels for the parties, it does not mean that such a relief could not have been granted in the present suit. Assuming for arguments' sake for a moment, while not holding so, that such relationship of landlord and tenancy was not established by the plaintiff, as per aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court, even the decree of possession ought to have been given in favour of plaintiff in view of factum of purchase admittedly proved by him and title of the plaintiff well established even in the present eviction suit filed under the Rent Control Act, 1950 upon defendants denial thereof; and that is what the ratio of the Full Bench decision is, which on all fours covers the present case with a distinct advantage in favour of the present plaintiff in the present case, who holds a registered sale-deed in his favour unlike in the case before the Full Bench of this Court, referred to supra. 19. However, in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to the eviction decree under the provisions of Act of 1950 itself in view of this established and admitted default in payment of rent by the defendant/tenant. 19. However, in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to the eviction decree under the provisions of Act of 1950 itself in view of this established and admitted default in payment of rent by the defendant/tenant. The issue of bona fide need of the landlord was not decided by the courts below, since they were deciding the issue of title and default in payment of rent by the defendant only. But, the eviction decree even on one of the grounds set up under Section 13 of the Act of 1950, is enough to grant eviction decree, which deserves to be granted in the present case. 20. Therefore, the present second appeal of the appellants/plaintiffs is liable to be allowed and the substantial question of law framed above, deserves to be answered in favour of appellants/plaintiffs and against the defendant/tenant, the same is accordingly answered and the appeal is allowed with a cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs within a period of three months. 21. The respondents/defendants/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs/appellants within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 30.06.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 1,000/- per month commencing from January, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiffs/appellants, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit or costs, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondents/defendants/ tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit @ Rs. 37/- per month from July, 1971 till December, 2015 and pay the same to the plaintiffs/appellants, within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The respondents/defendants/tenants shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises/house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The respondents/defendants shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiffs/appellants/landlord on or before 30.06.2016 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiffs/appellants shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and both the parties forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******