eviction is only incidental and that too for the purpose of finding out the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. It is by now well settled that the determination of such issue of title cannot be accepted to have been done in a full-fledged manner and cannot operate as res judicata between the parties, if the said issue arises in another action for recovery of possession of the premises based on title. This Court, therefore, does not find substance in the submission on behalf of the appellant that the finding on the issue of title as recorded by the appellate court below would prejudice the title of the plaintiff or the vendors of the plaintiff over the suit premises in any manner. Examining the findings by the appellate court below, it is clear that the issue with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was framed for determination and the parties led evidence on the said issue. However, it is also transparent from the averments made in the plaint that there is no such averment that the defendant-tenant ever paid the rent to the vendors of the plaintiff. There is no corroborating evidence led by the plaintiff in the suit except the deposition by the vendor of the plaintiff on the point of payment of rent by the defendant as tenant of the suit premises to the vendors of the plaintiff. From the perusal of judgment of the trial court, it appears that after recording the finding of title in favour of the vendors of the plaintiff and thereafter in favour of the plaintiff, the
