The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the existence of the tenancy and the failure to establish claimed title to the suit premises under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. Aggrieved by the appellate judgment and decree dated 29.05.2001 reversing the decree of dismissal of the suit for eviction of the Defendants, the present proceeding under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been instituted at the instance of the Defendants.

2. The facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset:

The Respondent in the present civil revision petition, as the Plaintiff, had instituted Title Suit No. 137 of 1991 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati seeking a decree of eviction of the Defendants from the suit premises under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The case of the Plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, is that he had purchased the land described in Schedule-A to the plaint by means of a registered sale deed bearing No. 8660 dated 26.12.1967. According to the Plaintiff, after purchase, he developed the land and constructed a house with C.I. Sheet roof on the Schedule-A land. Holding No. 56 of Ward No. 27-A was allotted in respect of the said house by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation. In the month of August, 1988, the Defendants took one room of the said house covered by Holding No. 56 of Ward No. 27-A, measuring 12' X 12'. The aforesaid suit room, which has been described in Schedule-B to the plaint, was taken on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- which according to the Plaintiff, was payable within the first week of the subsequent calendar month. According to the Plaintiff, though the Defendants had taken the suit room on rent @ Rs. 350/- per month, no rent was paid by the Defendants at any point of time and there being an apparent default on the part of the Defendants to pay the monthly rent, they were liable to be evicted on the ground of being defaulters. The Plaintiff also claimed bonafide requirement of the suit premises. It is on the aforesaid basis that the eviction of the Defendants from the suit premises was prayed for in the suit filed.

3. The Defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement denying the claims made by the Plaintiff and asserting that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff had no title to the property described in Schedule-A or in Schedule-B to the plaint. The Defendants asserted that the suit room including the house of which it is a part, was constructed by the Defendants out of their own funds. It was the further case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff had instituted the suit in question on the basis of some fabricated documents with a view to occupy the suit premises.

4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff by holding that the Plaintiff had failed to prove the relationship of the landlord and the tenant, as pleaded. In coming to the said conclusion, the learned trial Court took the note of the fact that there was a variance between the description of the suit premises, as contained in the plaint and in Ext. 'Ka' i.e. the sale deed bearing No. 8660 dated 26.12.67, on the basis of which, the Plaintiff claimed title to the land on which the suit house was situated. The learned trial Court, however, taking the view that the question of title would not be relevant in a suit for ejectment of the tenant under the provisions of the Act, proceeded to consider the oral evidence on record and after taking into account the evidence of P.W. 1 though it proper to hold that the Plaintiff had not succeeded in proving the relationship of landlord and tenant. In doing so, the learned trial Court took into account the evidence tendered by P.W. 1 (Plaintiff) to the effect that he was not aware of the date from which the tenancy had commenced as well as the statement of the Plaintiff made to the effect that after the commencement of the tenancy in the month of August, 1988, the Defendants had paid rent for two months. The aforesaid evidence was tak