JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd June, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Cooch Behar, in Title Appeal No. 16 of 2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Additional Court at Cooch Behar, in Title Suit No. 50 of 1998 at the instance of the defendant/appellant. 2. Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not. 3. Here is the case where we find that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of subletting. The defendant appeared in the said suit and contested the same by filing written statement denying the allegations made out by the plaintiff. Though his induction as a tenant by the plaintiff was not denied, but he disputed the plaintiff's title in the suit property. According to him the suit property is a 'Khas' land of the State of West Bengal. He also denied the allegation of induction of any sub-tenant in the suit premises by him. 4. The sub-tenant was also impleaded as the defendant no. 2 in the said suit. He also contested the suit by filing written statement. He also denied the title of the plaintiff in the suit property and claimed that he is running business in the suit premises by obtaining trade licence from the municipal authority. 5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. 6. The learned Trial Court after considering the materials on record came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. The learned Trial Court also found that the defendant is the defaulter in payment of rent as he could not prove that he paid any rent after September, 1983. The learned Trial Court also drew an adverse presumption on subletting, as the learned Trial Court found that the defendant no. 1 was not in actual physical possession of the suit premises and the defendant no. 2 has been carrying on business in the suit premises. The learned Trial Court also drew an adverse presumption on subletting, as the learned Trial Court found that the defendant no. 1 was not in actual physical possession of the suit premises and the defendant no. 2 has been carrying on business in the suit premises. Thus, on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of subletting, the suit was decreed. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, the defendant/appellant preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court held that the defendant no. 1 is a tenant under the plaintiff. The learned First Appellate Court also held that the defendant no. 1 defaulted in payment of rent in respect of the suit premises since October, 1983. The learned First Appellate Court also affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court on subletting of the suit premises by the defendant no. 1 to the defendant no. 2. The instant Second Appeal is directed against the said judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court at the instance of the defendant. 8. After hearing Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant and after considering the materials on record, we find that here is the case where the defendant has not only admitted that he paid rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff upto the month of September, 1983 but also admitted that he was inducted by the plaintiff in the suit premises on the strength of a written contract. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. 9. In view of the provision contained in Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the tenant cannot question title of the inducting landlord. That apart, in a suit for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground of subletting, the landlord is not required to prove his title in the property, in order to get a decree of eviction against his tenant on those two grounds. That apart, in a suit for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground of subletting, the landlord is not required to prove his title in the property, in order to get a decree of eviction against his tenant on those two grounds. As such, we hold that in a suit for eviction of a tenant filed by the landlord, the dispute relating to title, is a foreign issue which cannot be decided in such a suit. 10. Such being the position, we are of the view that the learned courts below did not commit any illegality in holding that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. 11. Since the defendant no. 1 could not produce any rent receipt showing payment of rent after September, 1983; we are of the view that both the courts below rightly held that the defendant no. 1 was a defaulter in payment of rent from October, 1983 and he is liable to be evicted on the ground of default as he failed to obtain relief under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 due to non-compliance of provision of Section 17(1) of the said Act. Since the defendant no. 1 could not establish that he was in possession of the suit premises and the capacity and/or arrangement under which the defendant no. 2 was allowed to carry on business in the said suit premises remains unexplained by the defendant no. 1, we are of the view that both the courts below did not commit any illegality in drawing presumption regarding subletting of the suit premises by the defendant no. 1 to the defendant no. 2. 12. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. We, thus, decline to admit this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 14. No further order need be passed on the stay application. The stay application is, thus, disposed of.