Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 15.06.2004 and decree dated 17.06.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, in Title Appeal No. 7 of 2004 allowing the appeal of the defendants and settling aside the judgment dated 10.06.2003 and decree dated 18.06.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Tinsukia, Assam, in Title Suit No. 43 of 1998.

2. By an order dated 14.10.2004, the appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law :

"1. Whether in view of clear admission by the defendants with regard to landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants, the defendants were estopped by virtue of the provisions of Section 115 and 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to deny the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land as well as the landlord-tenant relationship?

2. Whether the lower Appellate Court committed substantial error of law in not drawing adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 against the defendants for not examining key witness to show that Ext. 4 was not written by the defendants?

3. Whether the lower Appellate Court while appreciating the evidence with regard to Ext. 4 failed to take into consideration the mandatory provisions of Sections 103, 106 and 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also misinterpreted and misconstrued the principles underlying the aforesaid provisions of law?

4. Whether the lower Appellate Court committed substantial error of law in assuming charge of Handwriting Expert in comparing the handwriting and signature of defendant No. 2 in Exts. 4 and 6 ?

5. Whether the lower Appellate Court could have put himself in position of a Handwriting Expert as under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and could have compared the handwriting and signature of defendant No. 2 in Exts. 4 and 6 ?

6. Whether the lower Appellate Court while passing the impugned Judgment and Decree misinterpreted and misconstrued the documentary evidence, namely, Ext. 1, Ext. 2, Ext. 4, Ext. 5, Ext. 6 and Ext. "Ka" and did not consider Ext. 10 at all and thereby came to perverse findings?

7. Whether the lower Appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court acted illegally and perversely?

8. Whether the judgment dated 15.06.2004 of the lower Appellate Court can be construed as a judgment in accordance with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?"

3. The pleaded case in the plaint, filed on 02.11.1998, is that the Sadar Patty Masjid is a place of worship and it has houses, which are let out on rent to different persons for the benefit of the Masjid. On an approach being made by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, namely, Dildar Hussain, to accommodate him, a written agreement was executed on 14.04.1959 and, accordingly, said Dildar Hussain came in occupation of a plot of land measuring 15 Lechas covered by Dag No. 278 and 279 (Old), under Periodic Patta No. 48, situated at Doom Dooma Town, and he constructed a house consisting of five rooms made of bamboo-wall, Kachha floor, C.I. sheet roof on a part of the land measuring 6 Lechas and remaining 9 Lechas of the said land remained vacant. Yearly lease rent was fixed at Rs. 10/- and the plaintiff was to pay the construction cost of the suit premises at the time of vacating the house. On 05.08.1983, rent of the suit land and house was enhanced to Rs. 60/- per year. Dildar Hussain having expired, the present defendants being his legal heirs, continued to occupy the suit land and house. The defendants were very irregular in payment of rent and rent was lastly paid on 26.11.1992, covering rent up to December, 1992.

4. It is further pleaded that the defendants had caused serious inconvenience and annoyance to the Namajees as they resided within the premises of the prayer hall and, that apart, number of Namajees are increasing da