Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) The present Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants-defendants-tenants in a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent against the impugned judgment dated 03.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 50/1995 "LRs of Ejaj Mehandi v. Mohammed Umar & Ors. " by which, the learned First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment dated 30.09.1983 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur City (South) in Civil Original Suit No. 75/1981 "Mohammed Umar & Ors. v. Ejaj Mehandi & Ors. " by which, the learned Trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit property viz., a house, having Old No. 4/627 and New No.7/185 situated at Udaipur City.
(2.) The learned Trial Court had decreed the eviction suit (No. 75/1981) on 30.09.1983 filed by the plaintiffs-Mohammed Umar & Ors. on the grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting; and the first appeal (No. 50/1995) filed by the defendants-tenants was also rejected on 03.10.1997.
(3.) Being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 03.10.1997, the defendants have preferred the present second appeal in which, while admitting the appeal on 23.02.1998, a coordinate Bench of this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the appellants are precluded under Section 116, Evidence Act from denying the title of respondent No. 1 Mohd. Umar and leading evidence in respect of the suit property in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and whether the relationship of land-lord and tenant is established between the parties? ";