Judgment Heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in the Title Suit No. 236/1983. Also heard Mr. Sheeladitya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (defendants). 2. The Title Suit No. 236/1983 was filed by projecting that the defendants were inducted as tenants from 01.01.1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and that the defendants failed to pay the rent since November, 1982. Thus arrear rent apart from ejectment was prayed for in the suit. 3. In their WS, the defendants denied that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The vague description of the suit land on which the tenanted premises is located, was also questioned the by the defendants. They further stated that they are occupying their own house covered by Holding No. 27 and the same is recorded in the name of the defendant No. 2 Narayan Sarkar and municipal tax against this holding number is being paid by the defendants. It was also stated that the defendant No. 1 constructed their occupied house in 1966 and the plaintiffs have no title nor they can claim to be the landlord of this house. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati, framed the following 7(seven) + 1(one) additional issues: “1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiffs suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest ever the suit premises? 4. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants. 5. Whether the plaintiffs bonafide require the suit premises? 6. Whether the defendants are defaulters? 7. To what relief, if any the plaintiffs are entitled? Additional Issue: Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder?” 5. While discussing the 4th issue on existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, the Trial Court examined the municipal assessment record (Exbt.-A), which shows 1980 as the year of construction of the house. This evidence demolishes the plaintiffs’ claim that they inducted the defendants as tenants to their house in 1975. The Trial Court also opined that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden on existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties. This evidence demolishes the plaintiffs’ claim that they inducted the defendants as tenants to their house in 1975. The Trial Court also opined that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden on existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties. On examination of the plaintiffs’ diary (Exbt.-1), the Court opined that the entries showing deposit of rent in this diary is not an acceptable piece of evidence, as it was not a book of account which was regularly kept in course of business. That apart, the evidence of PW-1 was found to be unconvincing since he couldn’t describe how many rooms were let out. Similarly PW-2, who was an accused in a criminal case filed by the defendants, was held to be a biased witness. On the basis of analysis of the evidence, the Court held that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants is not established. Primarily for this reason, the ejectment suit was dismissed by the learned Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati, through the judgment dated 04.04.1991 (Annexure-3). 6. In the resultant Title Appeal No. 13/1991 filed by the aggrieved plaintiffs, the Appellate Court re-examined matter and also elaborately discussed the evidence and the conclusion on Issue No. 4. The higher Court disbelieved the plaintiffs’ claim that the tenancy was created w.e.f. 01.01.1975 since the municipal holding assessment (Exbt.-A) showed the suit houses was constructed only in 1980. 7. Although amendment was disallowed by the Trial Court on 20.09.1997, the Appellate Court took the additional trouble of examining the contents of the amendment petition. As the plaintiffs wanted to amend the schedule to incorporate the Patta number and Dag number on which the suit property is located, the Appellate Court after considering the evidence noted that even if the suit premises is covered by Holding No. 142, the defendants never tendered rent for that holding to the plaintiffs and nor they acknowledged the plaintiffs as their landlord. 8. After elaborate discussion on the issues and the evidence and noting that the testimony of Binapani Sarkar in the G.R. Case No. 2872/1983, cannot be accepted as she was a stranger in the present case, the Appellate Court reached the concurrent conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the defendants are occupying the suit premises as tenants of the plaintiffs. 9. I have considered the material basis on which the impugned verdicts were rendered. 9. I have considered the material basis on which the impugned verdicts were rendered. The Exhibit-A evidence is also noted and according to me the Courts below rightly rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants were inducted as tenants w.e.f. 01.01.1975 since the tenanted premises were found to be constructed only in the year 1980. The Exhibit-1 diary was rightly not accepted by the Court to establish the landlord tenant relationship. The PW-2 Jagabandhu Roy, who gave evidence on the tenancy agreement, faced criminal prosecution at the instance of the defendants as was admitted by the witness in his cross-examination and therefore his testimony shouldn’t in my opinion be relied upon to disturb the concurrent verdict. 10. For the forgoing reason, I find no merit in this case and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Registry should return the LCR to the concerned Court with a copy of this order. It may however be noted that the File-C2 pertaining to the deposition of the witnesses, is not found amongst the LCR records sent to this Court.