Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, whose predecessor Late Rajendra Mahato filed the T.S. No. 30/1992 for ejectment of the defendant. Also heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant.

2. Claiming to be the owner of a Goru Khatal (cow shed) and describing the defendant to be a tenant for the cow shed at a monthly rate Rs. 200/- P.M., the plaintiff sought ejectment on the ground that the defendant defaulted in paying rent since 1.8.1989. The plaintiff’s bona fide requirement was also pleaded for eviction.

3. In the additional W.S., the defendant denied the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and further claimed that the plaintiff is not the owner of the cow shed and that it was constructed by the defendant himself. Therefore the obligation to pay rent to the plaintiff was denied by the defendant.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following 8 issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), No.1, Guwahati:

(1) Whether there is a cause of action for the suit?

(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(3) Whether there is a tenant-landlord relationship between the parties?

(4) Whether the defendant is a defaulter?

(5) Whether the plaintiff has bonafide requirement for the suit premises?

(6) Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest over the suit land?

(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

(8) To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?

5. The learned Trial Court considered the Issue Nos. 2, 3 & 6 to be inter linked and discussed the same analogously. On the plea of the defendant that the cow shed belongs to Ajit Kumar Singh, the Court found that the defendant failed to produce any evidence. On the 3rd issue of landlord-tenant relationship, the Trial Court after considering the evidence of the DW.1, DW.2 & DW.3, decided this issue in the negative i.e. against the plaintiff.

6. Proceeding then to examine the 4th issue of rent default, the Trial Court held that the defendant is not paying the rent to anyone although he is occupying the house and on this basis only, the defendant was declared to be defaulter.

7. Consequently although the bona fide requirement was not proved, on the basis of the decision on the other issues, the decree of ejectment was granted through the judgment dated 9.12.2003 (Annexure-2) in the T.S. No. 30/1992, by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), No.1, Guwahati.

8. The aggrieved defendant then filed the T.A. No. 5/2004, where the Appellate Court treated the Issue No. 3 to be the vital issue in the case. Here the Court held that the landlord-tenant relationship is not proved between the two contesting parties. As this key issue was answered against the plaintiff, the Appellate Court observed that the decree for rent default could not have been passed against the defendant and accordingly the ejectment decree was reversed and the Title Suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.), No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati.

9. Assailing the legality of the Appellate Court’s verdict, Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel submits that a cryptic order was recorded by the Appellate Court only on the basis of the Issue No. 3, whereas the Court was obliged under Order 20, Rule 5 of the C.P.C. to give findings on each issue.

10. The petitioner contends that in ejectment suits under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act’), title is not relevant for a landlord-tenant relationship and yet casual findings were recorded by the two Court’s on the Issue No. 3.

11. Referring to the evidence of DW.2 Ramlal Roy, who in his cross-examination stated that “it is not a fact that the defendant has stopped paying rent to the plaintiff”, Mr. Deka argues that from this evidence, the relationship of landlord-tenant is established and therefore the decision on the Issue No. 3 is contended to be a perverse decision.

12. Appearing for the respondent (de