JUDGMENT : BIRENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. Heard the parties on whether this second appeal contains any substantial question of law. 2. A brief background is that the plaintiffs-respondents had brought a suit for ejectment under Rajasthan Rent Control Act, against original defendant Mang Singh on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. After death of Mang Singh, his legal heirs were substituted, who are appellants hereat. The learned trial Court decreed the suit by judgment dated 08.02.2013 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 44/2011. The dismissal was challenged by the appellants in Civil First Appeal No. 09/2013 which was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 10.09.2015. Hence, this second appeal. 3. The case and claim of the plaintiffs-respondents is that Mang Singh was tenant of Kesar Bai in House No. 32 situated in Mohalla Ilaji Ka Neem, Ganesh Ghati, Udaipur. The defendant was tenant in the upper floor and occupied three rooms along with toilet and kitchen. On 24.07.1995, the plaintiffs purchased the suit house from Kesar Bai through registered sale deed vide (Exhibit/1). After purchase, they entered into the shoes of their vendor and became landlords of the defendants. The plaintiffs further asserted that they are in personal need of the suit premise for their occupation and the defendant was/is defaulter in payment of rent since 1992. Prior to that, defendant was paying Rs.60 per month to the vendor of the plaintiffs. The defendants further trespassed on the vacant land by putting their animals thereat. 4. The defendant-appellants appeared and contested the suit denying the averments of the plaintiffs and asserting the fact that they are not tenants in the suit premise nor were tenants of Kesar Bai, rather they are residing therein as owner thereof. 5. Since the defendants had challenged the title of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs produced a copy of the judgment dated 28.02.1962 passed in Civil First Appeal No. 25/1960 titled Mst. Bhanu Bai Vs. Mst. Kesar Bai (Exhibit/31), whereby the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court declaring title and possession over the suit land of plaintiff Kesar Bai. The plaintiffs further produced sale deed dated 24.07.1995 executed by Kesar Bai w/o Late Mangi Lal Bhatt, wherein it is specifically mentioned that tenants are residing in the mentioned portion of upper and lower floor. The defendant tenant has defaulted in payment of rent since 1992. The plaintiffs further produced sale deed dated 24.07.1995 executed by Kesar Bai w/o Late Mangi Lal Bhatt, wherein it is specifically mentioned that tenants are residing in the mentioned portion of upper and lower floor. The defendant tenant has defaulted in payment of rent since 1992. The plaintiffs were given physical possession of the remaining portion, which was not under occupation of any tenant and constructive possession over the rest portion with clear stipulation that the toilet etc. would be commonly used by the purchaser and the existing tenants. 6. The plaintiffs were also empowered to recover the due rent from the defaulter tenants. The plaintiffs produced (Exhibit/25), an order of execution of decree passed against another tenant Ramchandra Paliwal on the prayer of Kesar Bai whereunder, the tenant was evicted by process of the Court and possession of the premise was handed over to Kesar Bai on 14.11.1994. 7. The plaintiffs produced (Exhibit/20), judgment and decree dated 01.07.1999 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 184/1998 brought by the plaintiffs for ejectment of tenant Bhanwar Lal who was tenant in another portion of the suit house. (Exhibit/8) is the application of original tenant Mang Singh to the Electricity Division for electric connection in the rented premise of the building wherein Mang Singh specifically mentioned his status that he was tenant in the suit premise. (Exhibit/6) is rent note written by Mang Singh to Kesar Bai wherein he admitted that he is tenant since 09.09.1967 on oral consent and would continue paying rent month to month and get receipt. On this document, another tenant Ramchandra Paliwal is a witness. 8. The defendants-appellants did not produce any documentary evidence of their title. The law is well settled that title to a property cannot be established by oral evidence. Out of four oral witnesses DW-1 Shayar Bai is one of the party appellant. DW-2 Sajjan Singh is also party appellant. DW-3 Jorawar Singh and DW-5 Kamla Devi deposed that they were tenants of the appellants. Statement of these oral witnesses cannot be a proof of title of the appellants on the suit premise. In the memo of appeal, the appellants have raised following questions as substantial questions of law, which are reproduced herein-below: “(a) Whether courts below are justified in passing the decree of eviction more so when relations of landlord & tenant is not established? In the memo of appeal, the appellants have raised following questions as substantial questions of law, which are reproduced herein-below: “(a) Whether courts below are justified in passing the decree of eviction more so when relations of landlord & tenant is not established? (b) Whether the document rent note couldn’t have been seen for establishing relation of land lord and tenant as same is not in accordance with sec. 105 TP Act? (c) Whether without complying sec. 51 TP Act no eviction could have been ordered and both the court below were wrong in lording eviction? (d) Whether a lessor can be exempted from the legal requirement of notifying the true lessee about the transfer of the title in his favour and is at liberty to serve the notice on some other person? (e) Whether the learned Courts below have misread the evidence? (f) Any other questions which deem fit and proper in this case and arise in this case may also be considered at the time of hearing by this Hon’ble Court?” 9. Evidently, none of the questions aforesaid are substantial questions of law, rather are mixed questions of law and fact. On the basis of material available on record, it is evident that the appellants failed to prove their title over the suit property and the plaintiffs-respondents had produced documentary evidence to prove their title as well as the fact that the appellants were tenant. 10. Therefore, finding of the Courts below cannot be faulted on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant established. Since, the suit was under Rajasthan Rent Control Act, therefore, provisions of Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act would not apply, especially when the tenancy was not for a year or more. Hence, no registered or written lease deed was required to establish tenancy. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following cases i.e. Ganesh Singh Vs. Hari Singh & Ors. 2002 Law Suit (Raj.) 941, H.T. Chandrashekharappa Vs. H.R. Raja, 1987 Law Suit (SC) 524. None of the cases are applicable in facts and circumstances of the case, rather, requirement of a registered lease deed is precisely discussed in Para 7 of decision rendered in Banwari Lal Sharma Vs. Hari Singh & Ors. 2002 Law Suit (Raj.) 941, H.T. Chandrashekharappa Vs. H.R. Raja, 1987 Law Suit (SC) 524. None of the cases are applicable in facts and circumstances of the case, rather, requirement of a registered lease deed is precisely discussed in Para 7 of decision rendered in Banwari Lal Sharma Vs. Ram Swaroop, AIR 1974 Raj 178 , which is being reproduced below: “[7] Now Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument and further that all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Thus, leases coming within the ambit of second paragraph of Section 107, include all other leases which are for a period of one year or less and in which the rent agreed upon in not yearly. Such leases, if they are reduced to writing, must be effected by a registered document. An unregistered document of lease, in cases where the lease is required to be registered conveys no title and creates no rights in the lessee and cannot be used in evidence to prove the transaction of lease or any terms thereof. In the present case as we have observed above, the document Ex. 1 fulfills all the necessary requirement of a lease, as it purports to have been executed both by the lessor and the lessee and contains all the essential terms and conditions of lease and is for a period of 11 months, reserving monthly rent, as such, it could have been effected only by a registered instrument, as required by the second paragraph of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. As the document Ex. 1 is admittedly not registered, it was clearly inadmissible in evidence and no rights could have been flown from such an unregistered document not it could have been used in the present case for the purpose of proving the relationship of landlord and tenant. In view of Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act, the provisions of Section 107 thereof arc to be read as supplemental of those of the Registration Act. In view of Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act, the provisions of Section 107 thereof arc to be read as supplemental of those of the Registration Act. The effect of these provisions read together, therefore, is to exclude all unregistered leases, which have been reduced to writing, from evidence.” 12. Likewise, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that since physical possession was not handed over to the purchaser-plaintiffs, they cannot bring a suit for ejectment of the tenant. Even constructive possession through some other person would satisfy the requirement of completion of sale besides other conditions. On careful consideration of the judgments of the Courts below, this Court does not find that the same suffers from misreading of evidence. 13. Some minor infirmities brought to the notice of the Court that the rent note (Exhibit/6) speaks about tenancy over one room, the plaint containing averments that the appellants were in possession as tenant over three rooms as such suffers from contradictions. After initial creation of tenancy further occupation on enhancement of rent cannot be ruled out. The plaintiff pleaded the quantum of rent and area of possession only on the date of default and not at the initiation of the tenancy. There is no requirement to notify to the lessee about transfer of the title by the lessor. Such information is implied by the conduct of the parties. 14. This Court does not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that on the portion which was trespassed by the tenant, separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was maintainable and not an eviction suit. The submission is misconceived one for the reason that if a lessee commits trespass over a portion of the same rented house, a suit for eviction would suffice grant of decree on the trespassed portion, as well. 15. On overall consideration, this Court does not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 16. Accordingly, the instant civil second appeal stands dismissed.