JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the judgment and order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No.10/2016, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Suit No.34/2011 is put to challenge.

3. The petitioner herein (the defendant before the trial court) had a tenancy agreement dated 02.09.2004 in respect of a room with the present respondents (the plaintiffs before the trial court) for a period of three years. The monthly rent was agreed at Rs.2,400/-. It may be stated that she paid an advance amount of Rs.20,000/-, which was to be adjusted with the monthly rent @ Rs.555.55. Accordingly, the tenancy agreement expired on 03.09.2007.

4. But the petitioner continued to occupy the suit room. Therefore, the respondents filed the suit before the trial court praying for eviction of the present petitioner as well as for recovery of a compensation of Rs.86,400/-.

5. The present petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement. She admitted the averments of the plaint.

6. The petitioner claims that after expiry of the tenancy agreement on 03.09.2007, she had handed over the possession of the suit room to the respondents and shifted her business to another place.

7. The petitioner further claims that in the early part of October, 2009, the present respondents offered to sale 2 Kathas 6 Chattak of land upon which the said suit room stood at a price of Rs.26,50,000/-. Pursuant to that, on 29.10.2009, the respondents executed an agreement for sale in favour of M/S. Pidawmai, of which the present petitioner is the proprietor. According to the petitioner, an advance of Rs.11,80,000/- was paid by her on the same day. Clause 1 of the agreement for sale mentions that fact. The petitioner claims that after taking the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,80,000/-, the present respondents further took different sums of money, as advance. In this way, the present petitioner paid a total sum of Rs.21,80,000/-.

8. The petitioner started to put pressure upon the respondents to execute the sale deed. But no steps were taken by the respondents to execute the sale deed.

9. In the last part of January, 2011, the respondents handed over possession of the suit property to the present petitioner. The petitioner claims that she is ready to perform her part of the contract, but the respondents failed to perform their part of the contract. Inspite of the said facts the petitioner did not file any counterclaim.

10. The trial court framed the following issues:

(1) Is there any cause of action for the suit?

(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(3) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?

(4) Whether there is any relationship of landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant?

(5) Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit premise?

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entailed to decree as prayed for?

(7) To what relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

11. The petitioner and the respondents examined one witness each.

12. The trial court held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and directed eviction of the respondents from the suit property.

13. Upon the Issue No.5, the present petitioner produced the agreement for sale as Ext.A. It was a type written document. The trial court found that in Clause 1 of the said exhibit, it was typed that Rs.1,80,000/- was paid, as advance, but subsequently, it was corroded by hand and the advance amount was converted to Rs.11,80,000/-. The trial court also noticed that a receipt showing that the present respondents received Rs.10,000/- was converted into