JAVA ROY, J. - (1.) HEARD the senior counsel Mr. P.K. Prasad, appearing on behalf of the appellants.
(2.) THE main grievance of the appellants is that the learned courts below have erred in going into the question of title and inferring the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. After going through the judgments of the trial court as well as the learned appellate court and noticing the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the findings of the learned court below is correct. The Trial court has taken notice of the fact at page 17 of the judgment that the plaintiff has produced rent receipts in the name of Tara Khatoon and Md. Usman of the year 1999 and in the name of Md. Sarfuddin, Dargahi, Safiq and Usman of the year 1992 and these documents are exhibited as Ext. - 2 Series. These documents create the right, title and constructive possession over suit land. He further produced decision of Anjuman regarding controversy between the parties dated 15.09.1994. exhibited as Ext. - 4. which shows that the defendants are tenants in the suit premises inducted in 1975 and they never acquired any title over the suit land.
(3.) THE trial court at page 21 of its judgment while deciding the issue No. 3 i.e. does the exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, by elaborating consideration of oral and documentary evidence has come to a finding that; I am of the view that the plaintiff has become able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.;