The limited relevance of the landlord's title in a landlord-tenant dispute and the estoppel of a tenant from questioning the title of the landlord during the tenancy under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-10-2001 passed in title Appeal No. 5/96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Guwahati, reversing the judgment and decree dated 6-11-1995 passed by the Munsiff, Rangia, in Title Suit No. 22/88 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents.

2. I have heard Mr. A.R. Benarjee, learned senior counsel for defendant/petitioners assisted by Ms. B. Choudhury, learned Counsel and Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs.

3. In order to properly appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, a brief discussion of relevant facts is necessary.

The plaintiffs/respondents filed a Title Suit No. 130/76 in the Court of Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati against the predecessor in interest. After the death of the original defendants Sri Radheshyam Paul, the names of the present petitioners were substituted by the Trial Court vide order dated 18-5-1985. The plaint so filed by the plaintiffs was amended and as per the amended plaint, it is alleged that the plaintiffs are the sole owners of the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint and the defendants have been occupying the same since 1-3-1972, agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 13.00 per month. It is alleged that since the commencement of the tenancy the defendant defaulted in payment of the house rent in spite of demand notice dated 9-9-1976 issued by registered post demanding payment of the arrear rent and for vacating the suit premises but without any effect. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of arrear rent for three year amounting to Rs. 468.00 and ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises. It has also been alleged in the plaint that the defendant in collusion with the staff of the concerned Municipal Board obtained registration of the suit house shown in the original plaint in their names as Holding No. 106 converted by the Rangia Municipal Board vide order dated 6-6-1986. It is asserted that the house originally belonged to the plaintiffs and earlier the house was registered in the name of the original plaintiffs Keshab Lahkar and the defendant are entitled to get registration of the holding in their names. It is pertinent to note herein that the original plaintiffs Keshab Lahkar having been expired during the pendency of the suit, the names of the present respondents were substituted as legal heirs vide order dated 12-11-1980. The plaintiffs also asserted that during the pendency of the suit (before the amendment of the plaint), in the month of March, 1998 the defendant raised asbestos chali. On the aforesaid premises the plaintiffs prayed for reliefs—

1. For a decree for khas possession of the premises described in Schedule (A) by remaining the defendants from the land and house thereon.

2. For a decree for arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 444/- may be passed against the defendants with cost of the suit.

3. For a decree that if the defendants do not admit the relationship of landlord and tenant the amount may be recovered as damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit land and the houses thereon.

3(A) For a decree declaring the registration of the houses on the land in schedule in the name of the defendant is illegal, void and inoperative.

4. For any other reliefs.

3A. In the amended Schedule-A the land measuring 1 Katha covered by KP Patta No. 47, Dag No. 52, old holding No. 105, (new holding No. 62, Ward No. 1) with thatched houses, two being dwelling houses and one being coking shed and a tinchali belonging to the plaintiffs situated at Rangiya town in the district of Kamrup, bounded by—

North - P.W.D. Road

South- Plaintiffs land.

East - Modan Lahkar and Ors.

West - Plaintiffs own land and house

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statements and denied the contents of the plaint. The defendant claimed that both Shri Dayal Hari Paul and Shri Mantu Chandra Paul, sons of la