The failure to establish title and landlord-tenant relationship led to the dismissal of the suit, and the flawed decision on additional evidence led to a remand for fresh consideration.

1. Heard Mr. D. Baruah, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appellant is the defendant in Title Suit No.361/2005 preferred by the plaintiff/respondent. The facts leading in filing the suit are that in July, 1994, the plaintiff/respondent purchased the suit land measuring 15 Lechas covered by Dag No.773, Part-II of Sahar Guwahait under Mauza Guwahati along with an Assam type house standing thereon. The said sale transaction was carried by way of a registered sale deed No.2971 dated 04.07.1994. The name of the plaintiff/respondent was mutated in the relevant land records and the holding under his occupation was corrected in his name under GMC holding No.132 of Ward No.28. The vendor of the plaintiff/respondent is one, Iftekar Rasul and the plaintiff/respondent was a tenant with respect to the suit premises standing over more or less two or three lechas of land. He pleaded that the monthly rent was paid to his landlord. Over the said land measuring 15 Lechas the defendant/appellant is running his business of repairing workshop under name and style Hamdard Engineering Workshop. Leaving aside the said portion under the possession of the defendant/appellant over the remaining 10 Lechas of vacant land the defendant raised the temporary shed in the year, 1997 with due permission from the plaintiff. The plaintiff after the purchase of the suit land informed the defendant/appellant about the said purchase where after he attorned the plaintiff as a landlord and agreed to pay his monthly rent in respect of the houses under his possession at the rate of Rs.1400/- per month. The defendant/appellant paid the rent to March 2004 and on receipt of the same the plaintiff/respondent issued rent receipts from the month of April, 2004 till March, 2005. The defendant/appellant failed to pay the rent and on refusal notice was issued. On receipt of the said notice demanding arrear rent of Rs.7,000/- the defendant/respondent informed that nearby to the said 15 Lechas of land he purchased land sometime in the year, 1985 and 1990 and he would be raising the construction thereon and till the completion of the construction he sought for the permission to stay over the tenanted premises. As per the promises, the defendant/appellant failed to construct the RCC building nor he vacated the suit premises and on demand he refused to pay the arrear rent and further rent rather he claimed himself to be the owner of the house denying the relationship of the landlord-tenant between the two. So he filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant and alternatively for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit premises.

3. The defendant/appellant filed his written statement and leaving aside the regular plea like the suit is not maintainable, barred by limitation apart from non-joinder of necessary parties etc. took specific plea that the Schedule-A and Schedule-B land mentioned in the plaint are not identifiable with the land purported to have purchased by the plaintiff/respondent. Denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent in defence the defendant/appellant took the plea that he purchased 1 katha 1 Lechas of land from Iftekar Rasul by way of registered sale deed bearing No.10716 dated 31.10.1985. On the strength of the said purchase, the defendant/appellant became the sole owner and possessor of the suit land with specific boundaries as per the Schedule mentioned in the sale deed. The suit land was purchased by the defendant/appellant much prior to the alleged purchase by the plaintiff/respondent and the question of derivation of right, title and interest by the plaintiff/respondent does not arise. Specifically denying the title along with the landlord tenant relationship with the plaintiff/respondent he sought for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the said defence, the defendant/appellant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the