Appellate Court of the ADJ, South-West in relation to the defendant of Suit No.103/2013 having been inducted as a tenant in 2010 in the suit premises. As it has also been observed hereinabove in reply to the legal notice issued to the defendant terminating his tenancy vide notice dated 20.05.2013 Ex. PW-1/3 as rightly observed by the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the plea of defence of the defendant i.e. the appellant herein of having been inducted as a licensee in the suit premises by Shri Khurshid Ali, DW-2 has not been established. In fact the testimony of Khurshid Ali, DW-2 has consistently been held by the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court to be inconsistent with the testimony of the defendant i.e. the appellant himself. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties having been held to have been established, in terms of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 an estoppel is raised against the tenant i.e. the appellant herein who thus cannot deny the title of the landlord. The plaintiff i.e. the appellant has been held to be in possession of the suit premises in view of the documents Ex.PW1/1 to 6 dated 07.01.1998 on purchase of suit property from Shri Subhash Chander, s/o Shri Vasudev and Shri Ramesh Kumar, s/o Shri Dashrath Raj who in turn had purchased the property from Shri Ganga Singh, s/o Shri Basant Lal vide the GPA, agreement for sale, affidavit, registration will dated 25.10.1991 Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/11. The existence of documents of title in favour of Shri Khurshid Ali, DW-2 alleged licensor of the appellant having not been established in accordance with law as held by the learned trial Court and by the First Appellate Court, it is apparent thus that there exists no substantial
