The initial burden of proof in a landlord and tenant relationship case lies on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the alleged facts.

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant as well as Mr. G.M. Paul, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

2. By this revision petition, the petitioner/defendant is assailing the order dated 7-10-2008 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1. Guwahati in Title Suit No. 818 of 2006 filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

3. For deciding this revision petition, it is not required to delve deep into the factual matrix. It will be suffice to state that the respondent/plaintiff had filed the Title Suit No. 818 of 2006 in the Court of Munsiff No. 3, Guwahati for a decree of ejectment of the petitioner/defendant from the suit premises and for recovery of the arrear rent in respect of the suit premises. It is alleged in the plaint that during the life time of Dr. Raj Kumar Das, the petitioner/defendant by a written agreement took lease of the suit premises on the 1st day of December, 1990 on monthly rental basis fixing rent at the rate of Rs. 1250/- per month with a condition that the payment shall be made within seven days of each current month. It is also pleaded in the plaint that for the petitioner/defendant his wife Geeta Goswami signed the agreement. Under the said lease agreement, the petitioner/defendant occupied the said house with his family members on the 1st day of December, 1990 and after the death of Dr. Raj Kumar Das, the respondent/plaintiff became the absolute owner of the said house and the land pertaining thereto. Thereafter the petitioner/defendant having approached the respondent/plaintiff, she agreed to sell the house and the land appertaining thereto and executed an agreement for sale dated 22-1-1996 at the price of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and the petitioner/defendant paid Rs. 1,50,000/- in advance with the condition that the petitioner/defendant would pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- only within six months and thereafter the, sale deed shall be executed. But the petitioner/defendant in violation of the agreement of sale did not pay any amount and also rent since the month of January, 1996. There respondent/plaintiff required the rented premises, which is in possession of the petitioner/defendant, for use of her family members. The respondent/plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 818 of 2006,for a decree of ejectment of, the petitioner/defendant and also for a decree directing the petitioner/defendant to pay the arrear rent as well as other reliefs.

4. The petitioner/defendant had filed written statement. The copy of the written statement as available at Annexure-2 to the present revision petition. In the written statement, the petitioner/defendant had categorically denied the landlord and tenant relationship as pleaded in the plaint and also denied that the petitioner/defendant had executed a written agreement for lease of the said house premises on the 1st day of December, 1990 on monthly rent of Rs. 1,250/-.

5. From the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the plaintiff and the written statement of T.S. No. 818 of 2006, it is clear that the petitioner/defendant is not admitting the case of the respondent/plaintiff pleaded in the plaint and also categorically denied the landlord and tenant relationship as alleged in the plaint.

6. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 18, Rule 1 of the CPC in the trial Court for a direction to the petitioner/defendant to produce the evidence first and also to furnish the copies of the documents in support of his claims. To the said application, the petitioner/defendant also filed a written objection contending that the provision of Order 18, Rule 1 of the CPC had been mis-construed and the said application is liable to be dismissed. In that written objections, the petitioner/defendant had categorically stated that the petitioner/defendant has hot admitted the fact alleged by the respondent/plaintiff in T.S. No. 818 of 2006. The learned t