The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decree for eviction cannot be granted solely on the basis of title in a suit for eviction based on the relationship of landlord and tenant.

Heard Mr.R.K.P.Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance dismissing the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant and for realization of the arrears of rent. The defendant contested the assertions of the plaintiff and denied his status as tenant of the plaintiff. Specific issues were framed with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant. Both the courts below after scrutiny of the evidence of the parties, have reached to the concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish his relationship of landlord and tenant with the defendant for the suit house. The suit was, therefore, dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiff thereafter has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

4. In order to appreciate the submission on behalf of the appellant, it would be profitable here to take into notice some more facts. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit property belonged to the wife of the defendant who sold the same to the plaintiff for valuable consideration and executed a sale deed in his favour. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant who is husband of the vendor of the plaintiff was later on inducted as tenant in the suit house by the plaintiff. It is also admitted fact that the wife of the defendant had filed T.S.No. 98/1996 for declaration of her title and confirmation of possession over the suit house after declaring the sale deed dated 23.02.1995 (in favour of the present plaintiff) as void. The said suit was dismissed and the appeal filed thereafter was also dismissed. However, S.A.No.131/2008 filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree has been admitted for hearing before this Court.

5. Mr.Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the findings therefore are vulnerable. It has also been submitted that the appellate court below has also failed to frame the points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. and the judgment therefore is vitiated for non-compliance of the said provision. It has also been propounded by the learned counsel that once the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties is established then the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of the eviction because even if the relationship is not established then the defendant in occupation of the suit premises would either be a trespasser or a licensee. The learned counsel has also canvassed that the decree passed in the suit filed by the wife of the defendant would operate as res judicata on the issue of title against the present defendant. It has lastly been submitted that this second appeal should be admitted and be placed for hearing alongwith the S.A.No.131/2008 filed by the wife of the defendant.

6. After perusal of judgments of both the courts below and considering the submissions, it is manifest that the specific issue of relationship of the plaintiff with the defendant as landlord and tenant has been framed in the suit. The said issue has been decided against the plaintiff by both the courts below. It has been found by both the courts below that the plaintiff has failed to lead cogent evidence to establish the fact that the defendant is his tenant. Both the courts below have arrived at the said finding after scrutiny of evidence of the parties. The reappreciation of evidence at the second appellate stage in order to indict concurrent finding of fact on the issue is not permissible unless perversity is established.

7. So far as the submission with regard to grant of decree to the plaintiff on the basis of title over the suit premises which according to him has been found in the suit filed by the wife of the defendant is concerned, it is well settled by now that the de