JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of the Defendant who are admittedly tenants under the Plaintiffs. The plea taken by the Defendant is that they were inducted as permanent tenants upon the suit lands some 40 or 50 years ago. The concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below is that the Defendant and his ancestors have been in uninterrupted possession of the suit lands for over 40 years. The Courts below have also concurrently found that the Defendant's possession was being continued by temporary leases executed by the Plaintiff's ancestors. As the Defendants refused to quit the suit was filed in 1948 for their eviction. The Plaintiffs relied on Ext. 2 and Ext. 3 which are respectively lease-deeds executed by Purandar in favour of the Defendants' ancestor. Ext. 2 is dated 10th January 1899 and Ext. 3 is dated 26th April, 1919. Another document relied on by the Plaintiffs is Ext. 4, which was executed by Ekadasi on 15th February, 1944 in favour of the Plaintiffs. There is no dispute about the genuineness of these documents. The only objection taken against their admissibility was that they came from the custody of the Plaintiffs though they purport to be pattas. The explanation offered on behalf of the Plaintiffs is that at the expiry of the term of the lease, the documents were returned to the Plaintiffs and a .fresh document was executed. This explanation has satisfied the courts below, as it has satisfied us, as being natural and probable. We would, therefore, in agreement with the Courts below, accept these documents as genuine. 2. Apart from that, there is a considerable body of oral evidence in support of the Plaintiffs' case that the Defendants and his ancestors were merely temporary cultivators of the land under the Plaintiffs and his ancestors. The tenancy having been admitted by the Defendants the onus was upon them to show that it was of a permanent character. The Defendants plea throughout has been that at the very inception of the grant it was a permanent tenancy. On the evidence before us, we are bound to accept the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the Defendants have failed to prove that there was any such permanent tenancy to start with. The Defendants plea throughout has been that at the very inception of the grant it was a permanent tenancy. On the evidence before us, we are bound to accept the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the Defendants have failed to prove that there was any such permanent tenancy to start with. No such grant has been proved, nor has any evidence been adduced to justify the reference that there was a permanent tenancy. 3. A further significant fact that requires to be noticed is that the rent has varied from time to time a fact which militates against the tenancy being a permanent one. In this Court Mr. Sen attempted to raise a new argument, his contention being that by adverse possession the Defendants must be deemed to have acquired the right of permanency. He relied on Rule 9 of the Bhumi Bidhi Rules of the Sonepur State, which declares as void any lease of Bhogra lands for a period exceeding one year without the sanction of the Ruler and also declares as illegal the possession of the tenant under a gauntia. It is accordingly argued that the possession of the Defendants in this case was illegal at its very inception and was therefore adverse j and consequently they have prescribed for a right of permanent occupancy. While the premises may be correct the inference does not follow. If Ext. 2 is genuine, as we have held it to be, the possession of the Defendants became adverse, and the right that they could prescribe for was only that of tenant's right. Ext. 2 does not purport to confer a right of permanency, and all that the parties contracted for was only a temporary lease for ten years. At best the Defendants can claim to have acquired by prescription a temporary lessee's rights. They have therefore no claim to permanent rights in the tenancy even on the ground of prescription. 4. We would, therefore, accept the findings of the Courts below and dismiss this appeal with costs. Narasimham, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed