JUDGMENT : SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. 1. A Suit was filed after determining the tenancy of the applicants in the Revision on the basis of the fact that they had denied in another Release Application that the plaintiffs were complete owners of the property in question and that they were only co-owners of it. 2. Before the Suit was being decided, three issues were framed which were as follows: ^^1- D;k izfroknh uknsgkan gS vkSj mUgksaus fdjk;k vnk djus esa pwd dh gSAa 2- D;k izfroknh us oknhx.k dks vdsyk ekfyd o HkwLokeh ekuus ls badkj fd;k gS ;fn gkW rks bldk izHkko 3- vuqrks"kA^^ 3. The first issue was as to whether the applicants-tenants had defaulted in payment of rent and the second was as to whether when the defendants had stated that the plaintiffs/respondents were not the sole owners then had they denied the ownership of the plaintiffs. 4. The first issue was decided in the negative against the plaintiffs and the second issue was decided in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiffs. After having found that the defendants had denied the title of the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed. The instant Revision was filed thereafter. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the Trial Court, after applying a wrong proposition of law, as had been held in AIR 1958 All. 847 (Hashmat Husain Vs. Sagir Ahmad & Ors.) that if a defendant states that the landlord was a co-owner then he would be denying the ownership of the plaintiff landlord, had decreed the suit. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this judgment was declared a bad law by a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1975 SC 398 (Smt. Bela Das & Ors. Vs. Samarendra Nath Bose) and submitted that it had been held therein that a simple statement by the tenant that the landlord was not the complete owner and was a co-owner of the property would not mean that he had denied the title of the landlord. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, however, submitted that since AIR 1958 All. 847 : Hashmat Husain Vs. Sagir Ahmad had been followed in 1982 AWC 744 (Narain Das Khanna Vs. Dr. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, however, submitted that since AIR 1958 All. 847 : Hashmat Husain Vs. Sagir Ahmad had been followed in 1982 AWC 744 (Narain Das Khanna Vs. Dr. Jawahar Lal Bhatia) which had upheld the earlier decision and since both the judgments were delivered by Division Benches, this Court cannot differ from the ratio which was laid down in the aforementioned two Division Bench judgments and if at all this Court desired to digress from the two decisions, then it had to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. 7. However, having considered the position of law as it stands today, I find that since the law as had been laid down in Narain Das Khanna (supra) had been declared to be bad law by the Supreme Court in Smt. Bela Das (supra), I need not refer the question to a Larger Bench. The law which has now to be followed is the one which has been laid down in Smt. Bela Das (supra). This is precisely what was observed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in 2004 (56) ALJ 2018 (Hari Ram Sahu Vs. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal) and it was held therein that a mere averment of the tenant that the landlord was not the sole owner would not mean that he had denied the title. 8. Under such circumstances, I hold that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was based on a wrong premise and, therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The judgment and decree dated 25.1.1989 is set aside. 9. The Revision is, accordingly, allowed.