1. - This civil Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment & decree dated 19/11/1993 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which, Civil Appeal No.9/1988 filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 23/04/1988 passed by the Court of Additional Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur decreeing Civil Suit No.306/1980 in favour of the defendant-respondents, has been upheld.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this civil second appeal in brief are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the ground that on 18/12/1969, the property was rented to defendant-respondent No.1-Mohan Lal for rent of Rs. 67/- per month. The contention of the plaintiff-appellant was that on the same day, the property has been purchased from defendant-respondent No.1 and same has been rented to him and as the defendant-respondent No.1 has not paid any rent, notice has been served on default being committed by him and hence, he be evicted. Per contra, the contention of defendant-respondent No.1 was that he never executed any rent-deed or sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The property was his ancestral property, which was sold to Ramjilal by defendant-respondent No.1, defendant No.1/1 Brij Mohan and defendant No.1/2 Chandra Mohan and Ramjilal have rented the property to defendants No.2 and 3 and it has also been further pleaded that prior to sale-deed dated 18/05/1971, part of the property was mortgaged with Vidhya Devi and Aladin, which was got redeemed from both the persons and possession of the property has been handed over to Ramjilal hence, suit of the plaintiff is based on false assertions and be dismissed. After hearing the parties, both the courts below had dismissed the suit hence, this appeal.

3. The appeal has been admitted on 07/09/1998 on the following two substantial questions of law:-

"(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of courts are vitiated on account of enlarging the scope of the suit converting the suit of ejectment into one of title?"

(2) Whether the finding on Issue No.1 is vitiated as being contrary to the evidence on record?"

4. The main issue in this appeal is Issue No.1, which is in regard to relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. The contention of the appellant is that rent-deed Ex.1 has been proved by him and when the rent-deed is proved, both the courts have erred in not decreeing the suit for eviction, enquiry of title is foreign in a suit for eviction and both the courts below have entered into the enquiry of title, which is without jurisdiction and other contention of the appellant is that his suit has been dismissed on the ground that original sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant has not been submitted, whereas proceedings of the courts below goes to show that certified copy of the sale-deed has been submitted by the defendant hence, there was no need to submit secondary evidence of the document and when document has been produced by the defendant himself, the sale-deed is admitted document between the parties and suit must have been decreed.

5. Per contra, the contention of the defendant-respondent is that it is true that in the suit for eviction, enquiry about title is unwarranted but in the present case, looking to the pleadings of the defence, the court has considered the rival contentions and while considering the Issue No.1, the fact of title has been considered as it was agitated by the parties. The court has not entered into enquiry of title. The question as regards to relation of landlord and tenant between the parties is purely a question of fact and cannot be entertained into this second appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned-judgments as well as original record of the case.

7. Ex.1 rent-deed has been s