Aditya Nath Mittal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. None present for the opposite parties in the revised call.

3. This revision has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2006, passed by the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.02 of 2000, by which the suit has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the learned court below has committed a manifest error of law in not framing the questions for determination in accordance with Order XX, Rule 4 C.P.C. It has also been submitted that the learned court below has also failed to appreciate the point that the revisionists were the owner of the building and not owner of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs-revisionists are the owner landlord of the construction and the defendants-respondents have paid rent to the plaintiffs-revisionists thereby admitting the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. It has also been submitted that the findings of learned court below are illegal, perverse and factually misconceived, therefore, they are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the case Akhil Kumar Jain vs. S