Oral evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written document, and the interpretation of such documents is a question of law.

B. L. Yadav, J.

1. -this is a defendants Second Appeal preferred under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "the Code)" in a suit filed by the plaimiff-respondent for eviction of the defendants-appellants and for arrears of rent.

2. The suit was brought in respondent of Holding No.1, Circle No.263, present Holding No.7 (b), Circle No.265. Ward No.37/3 situated in chitkohra Hat, village Sorampur Sagar Dih, Police Station Gardanibagh in the District of Patna, The suit premises belonged to the plaintiff-respondents mother Bibi Maimuna Khatoon, who had acquired the said suit land through a registered sale deed dated the 24th of March, 1939 and through a permanent settlement deed in lieu of dower deed dated 23-12.1947 executed by her husband late Syed Azizuddin Ashraf. Thereafter she established a Hat (market) over it, known as Chitkohra. Hat situated at different plots and khatas and the entire area of the Hat was 5.08 acres. Her name was also recorded in the Register 2 (two) of the landlord and she used to pay rent for same to the State after vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar. The mother of the plaintiff through a registered deed of gift dated 27-3-1973 gifted the suit property to the plaintiff. Late Shambhu Ghosh father of the defendants, appellants was tenant in the suit premises situate on a small portion of the entire land under the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.5.50 Paise and the rent was to be paid within seven days of every succeeding month. The tenancy was according to the English Calendar beginning from first day of each month and ending on the last day of the month. After the death of Shambhu Ghosh the present appellants continued to remain in the suit premises as tenant but there was no consent.

3. The plaintiff-respondent become the owner of the suit premises after execution of the registered deed of gift dated 27-8-1973 and the donee came in possession of the same, but the rent was not paid by the defendants-appellants to the plaintiff respondent. Hence the defendants-appelants were liable for eviction and to pay the arrears of rent.

4. The suit was contested by the present defendants-respondents denying that they were tenants or that the plaintiff was owner of the suit premises, rather it was averred that their father Shambhu Ghosh had taken about 15 dhoors of land in Chitkohra Ha t by oral settlement from late Syed Azizuddin father of the plaintiff-respondent about 50 years back and had raised construction over it and a sum of Rs, 6/8/-Annas per month was being paid to the plaintiff. It was further averred that the defendants-appelants were not tenant or owner of their occupation and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court has decreed the same. Against that judgment and decree the preseat Second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the defendants appellants were owners of the accommodation raised by their father late shambhu Ghosh and that there was no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, and the lower appellate court did not appreciate the evidence on record nor considered the oral evidence correctly. If there was question of appreciation of oral evidnce, the principle was that when the appellate court has to consider an issue turning on oral evidence, it must bear in mind that it doss not enjoy the advantage which the trial court had in watching demeanour of the witnesses. He leaned heavily on Madhusudan das V/s. Smt. Narayani Bai and others [air 1983 S. C.114],

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent refuted the submissions advanced on behalf of the defendants-appellants and contended that whether there was relationship of the landlord and tenant and whether the appellants were owner, is a question of fact. The lower appellate court after considering the evidence on record has held that