The payment of rent by a tenant to the landlord, coupled with the tenant's acknowledgment of the landlord's title, establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant.

1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against whom a decree for ejectment was passed by the Munsiff, Alwar and on appeal by the defendant the same are upheld by the District Judge, Alwar.

2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Firm Bhonreylai Hiralal, Kedalganj, Alwar and its partners respondent No. 2 to 6 filed the suit in the Court of Munsiff, Alwar on 10-2-62 alleging that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu family and carry on business under the name and style: Firm Bhonrey lal Hiralal, which was also registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It was alleged that one Thakur Shivelal Singh, Muafidar of Thikana Burja sold a place of land measuring 370,10 "x'3" situated in the city of Alwar to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 22-7-1956 for a consideration of Rs. 3000/-, and that the defendant was occupying a portion of this land measuring .27' x 33' as a tenant of the vendor Shivelal Singh for which the rent settled was Rs. 2/8/- per month. It was also alleged that the defendant had paid rent to the plaintiffs upto 31-12-1960, and thereafter no rent had been paid. The plaintiffs' case was that that they wanted to construct shops on the land in question for carrying on their own business, and thus ejectment was claimed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the landlords. It was also averred that the plaintiffs had terminated the defendant's tenancy by giving him a notice of ejectment dated 28-8-1961 to which the defendant had given an evasive reply dated 12-9-1961.

3. The defendant denied the plaintiffs' suit and in the written statement filed by him it was pleaded that the plaintiffs did not constitute a joint Hindu family and that their firm was unregistered under the partnership Act and consequently the firm was not competent to file the suit. The ownership of Shivelal Singh to the land in dispute was also denied, and so also Shivlal Singh's right to sell it to the plaintiffs It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had not acquired any valid title to the land in dispute. The defendant also denied his status as a tenant of Shivalal Singh and pleaded that he had been in possession of this land for more than 100 years and his ancestors had built a house on it at their own cost. The alleged relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant and Shivelal Singh, the vendor of the plaintiff was denied and so also the alleged attornment by defendant in favour of the plaintiffs by payment of rent. It was pleaded that the defendant being illiterate had once paid a sun of Rs. 7.50 paisa to the plaintiffs under the pressure of the plaintiffs who were rich and influential people in the city. The service of notice of ejectment was also denied. In the alternative it was pleaded that the land in question was muafi land which could not have been sold on account of the enforcement of the and Reforms Land Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, The defendant also took the plea that Shivelal Singh had executed the sale deed in favour of Hitalal alone, and, therefore the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. In the last resort the defendant pleaded that in any case if all other points are decided against the defendant, the defendant was a permanent tenant in respect of the land in question and consequently no suit for ejectment could be brought against him. It may be stated here that for the purposes of ejectment the plaintiffs had also alleged that the defendant Nathuram had sublet the land in question to defendant No. 2 Gopiram. But it appears that this ground was not pressed.

4. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Munsiff by her judgment dated 21-1-1966 held that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu family and carry on business under the name and style Firm Bhonrey Lal Hiralal, Kedalganj, Aiwar. It was also found that Shivelal Singh was competent to sell the land in question and had validly sold the same to the plaintiffs by a re